Rey 


FAHY 


a 
Siege ON 
ne wears 
ea Le Oe 





DUKE 
UNIVERSITY 





LIBRARY 





Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2021 with funding from 
Duke University Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/laborpoliticsineO3gill 





Die UNI ERS ITTY: POBLI CATIONS 


LABOR AND POLITICS 
IN ENGLAND 
1850-1867 





LABOR AND POLITICS 
~ IN ENGLAND 
1850-1867 


By 


FRANCES ELMA GILLESPIE, Pu.D. 


Instructor in History in the University 
of Chicago 





DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 
1927 


OMT Eee eta N 
NS i ie 
* } f \* 7 , > ee 





x \ COPYRIGHT, 1927, BY 
: yi DUKE UNIVERSITY PRESS 


Mi sega id 


PRINTED BY 
THE SEEMAN PRESS INCORPORATED _ 
‘ | DURHAM, N. Cc. 


PREFACE 


Students of English social movements in the nineteenth 
century have in general expressed the opinion that English 
workingmen, during the two decades after 1850, made little 
positive contribution to the politics of the period. Such 
significance as these years possessed in this connection has 
been considered to be of a negative kind only. The one 
striking exception has been the recognition of the importance 
of trade-union political activities in the late sixties, chiefly 
for purely trade-union objects. A certain lack of convic- 
tion as to the adequacy of the few general observations 
usually made to cover this chapter in the history of the 
political labor movement in England is the source out of 
which this study grew. It appeared worth while to re-exam- 
ine the evidence with a view to giving the chapter, if possible, 
a more substantial character. It seemed possible that a 
re-evaluation of its importance, even in English political 
history as a whole, might be rendered necessary if all the 
available data should be assembled. This study presents 
such data as I have succeeded in collecting and such conclu- 
sions as the evidence seemed to me to warrant. 

To the members of the History faculty at the University 
of Chicago who gave me assistance in prosecuting this inves- 
tigation I wish to express my sincere gratitude. Among 
these I desire to mention especially Dr. Conyers Read, until 
recently a member of that faculty, who first suggested that 
I undertake this study and whose encouragement and assis- 
tance, given generously throughout the course of my re- 
search, were invaluable. In England I met with great cour- 
tesy from all from whom I sought aid. To the authorities 
and attendants at the British Museum, the Goldsmiths’ 


Seon 
ad 
ra} 
bvece 
o. 2) 
= 


Vi PREFACE 


Library of the University of London, the British Library of 
Political Science, the library of the Bishopsgate Institute, 
and the Manchester Free Reference Library, I express my 
thanks. To Mr. R. H. Tawney I am very grateful for 
suggestions and valuable letters of introduction. 


FRANCES ELMA GILLESPIE. 
Chicago, 1926. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


CHAPTER I: THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD 


CHAPTER II: A NEW POLICY: CONDITIONS ATTENDING ITS 
INAUGURATION 


CHAPTER III: THE PARLIAMENTARY AND FINANCIAL 
REFORM ASSOCIATION 


CHAPTER IV: REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION AFTER 
THE CRIMEAN WAR: ELECTION OF 1857 


CHAPTER V: THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 
FACTORS UPON THE REVIVAL OF REFORM 


CHAPTER VI: JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 


CHAPTER VII: THE PUBLIC AND THE REFORM BILLS 
OF 1859 AND 1860 


CHAPTER VIII: TRADE UNIONS AND POLITICS IN THE SIXTIES 


CHAPTER IX: THE REFORM LEAGUE, THE NATIONAL REFORM 
UNION, AND THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 


CHAPTER X: CONCLUSION 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 


INDEX 


PAGE 


16 


77 


110 


131 


146 


168 


197 


289 


295 


309 


Da eae 


-_ earl a uy i ee Oath >. 
ON oo eee ee 


+ ron. oA 





LABOR AND POLITICS 
IN ENGLAND 
1850-1867 





CHAPTER I 


THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD 


This study takes as its point of departure the end of the 
Chartist agitation. One distinct phase of the English labor 
movement had wrought itself. out through thought and ac- 
tion and disillusionment, and those whose necessities had 
fashioned it found themselves without a workable theory or 
policy, but with problems only less pressing for solution than 
in the years just behind them. The next two decades were 
to be for English workingmen a critical period of transi- 
tion and adjustment. This is the period of the present in- 
vestigation, the aim of which is not to present an analysis 
of all the important endeavors of the working classes, but 
to weave from many irregular and sometimes tenuous 
threads the pattern of their political history. 

It will be immediately objected, perhaps, that these de- 
cades were characterized preeminently by an absence of 
political interest and activity on the part of English work- 
ingmen. To test the validity of that general assumption is 
_one object of this investigation. That there was any clear- 
cut, easily labeled political labor movement in this period, 
comparable in distinctness of organization and aim with the 
Chartism that preceded it or the Labor Party that was even- 
tually to follow it, cannot for one moment be maintained. 
But that, on the other hand, this was a period barren of 
working-class political interest and achievement would seem 
to be an opinion equally untenable. 

The failure by 1850 of the organized class movement, 
which aimed at independent political action, and the sub- 
sequent direction of the activity of workingmen toward a 
more or less deliberate merging of working-class interests in 


« 


4 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


general liberal interests, operate to obscure the fairly dis- 
tinct and conscious share the working classes had in the ad- 
justment of political relationships that took place in the 
next two decades. The Chartist movement had made the 
upper and middle classes aware of the wage-earning classesy 
with a distinctness that left no debate as to the latent power 
residing in the laboring masses. It is possible that the 
chief result of the whole Chartist effort was just this fact. 
The governing classes were compelled to recognize for the 
first time that in the workers there was a new political 
element to be reckoned with in all future calculations of 
policy. Continued disregard of working-class opinion was 
henceforth impossible—impossible not only because of 
working-class insistence, but also because of this conscious- 
ness on the part of those above them of the power that 
could be called into existence through the wise or unwise 
handling of working-class problems. The broad lines of 
political development from 1850 on were in no small part 
drawn with reference to this new factor. 

Not all middle and upper-class politicians were con- 
scious of this altered situation and shaped their policies ac- 
cordingly. Nor is it to be assumed that those who did 
have eyes to see would have given ready attention to the 
wishes of the working classes, if the latter had not often 
prodded their rulers to a realization of their power and their 
problems. The working classes did not always do this 
with deliberate purpose. Their action upon the political 
consciousness of the alert members of the ruling classes 
was indirect as well as direct. The influence of workingmen! 
in the politics of the period should, therefore, be studied in 
both these aspects: that which they exerted consciously, and 
that which their increasing weight, through organization, 
wealth, and intelligence, was able to exert because of the 
mere fact of its existence. The second factor told heavily 


THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD 5 


as a supplement to the first. Deliberate action on the part 
of workingmen became less and less a matter to be ignored, 
as their mass importance grew. 

This potential power in the hands of wage-earners was 
regarded differently by the different groups among other 
classes. These diverse views tended to bring about dif- 
ferent alignments in the country and in parliament and,. 
working with other directive forces, had a large share in‘ 
that evolution of parties and policies which is the out- 
standing feature of English domestic politics during the 
period under consideration. 

The issue, as it presented itself in its widest form, was 
one of the issues of Chartism-democracy; or, as it took 
practical shape, the political recognition of the working 
classes. The Chartists had brought the possibility of de- 
mocracy down from the realm of speculation and high con- 
stitutional debate into the hot arena of mass agitation. To 
most upper-jand middle-class leaders after 1850 it was a 
grave question whether the issue could ever again be ele- 
vated to the rarer atmosphere of calm and judicious consid- 
eration, where it could be sterilized to innocuousness. To 
them democracy meant danger to the institutions of the 
country. Their policy had to be, therefore, to keep the 
issue deadened, if possible, and to combat it cautiously but 
persistently, if it should be revived. 

Certain groups of the middle class, however, saw in a 
mitigated democracy a force which could be used to effect 
the one object to them most desirable; namely, the further 
liberalization of the government and of policy. They be- 
lieved that if working-class power could be evoked within 
measure—the stream turned on until sufficient flood should 
gather to float their great measures over the bar of a con- 
servative opposition—such limited democracy would pro- 
mote the reformation of England along most desirable lines. 


6 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


The first reforms contemplated were the completion of 
free trade and an alteration in the basis of taxation. These 
groups, under the leadership of John Bright, pursuing a 
policy in harmony with their purposes, became the most 
active force in reshaping issues and parties in parliament 
and in the country. 

Such, in broadest statement, was the shape the question 
of working-class participation in politics took in the minds 
of the upper social classes. But, like most broad state- 
ments, it must at once be modified, and the modifications 
are of equal importance with the generalizations. Within 
all of these larger groups thus taking a certain attitude to- 
ward the question of democracy, subdivisions were con- 
stantly being created by the operation of other currents and 
interests. Singleness of view was repeatedly broken into 
complexity because of the action of forces inseparable 
from the main consideration. 

Of these corollary considerations, beyond question the 
most disturbing were the economic implications of demo- 
cracy. A study of the expressions of the opinion of the 
time—through the press, in parliament, by means of pam- 
phlets, and in public addresses—offers the temptation to 
assert that the economic issue was the solid substance that 
upper and middle class politicians saw under the garb of 
democracy. That which gave the significance of living 
reality to the whole issue was the power to effect economic 
change, which it was believed political power would confer. 

The reason for this conception of the problem is easy 
to understand. The reform of 1832 had implied the politi- 
cal recognition of economic power and it had resulted in 
further economic and social changes, such as the new Poor 
Law and the repeal of the Corn Laws. The Chartists had 
demanded political democracy for the ultimate purpose of 
providing a better distribution of wealth in the interest of 


PH SIGNIFICANCE (OF THE PERIOD 7 


the masses. Thus, on the two occasions when an advance 
in a democratic direction had been before the country, the 
chief aim had been to effect alterations in social and 
economic conditions. The two concepts, therefore, became 
inextricably joined in the minds of the great majority 
of the governing classes. Most of those who desired to 
use the political power of workingmen and most of those 
who feared it desired and feared it alike on economic 
grounds. One important exception must be made. The 
nonconformists saw in democracy a powerful ally in their 
struggle to disestablish and disendow the established Church. 
In proportion, therefore, as the nonconformist body was not 
identical with the other extreme liberal groups, they added 
to the number and influence of those who kept the ques- 
tion of democracy in the forefront of English politics. 

The purpose of these few paragraphs is to indicate the 
reaction of the more powerful social groups in England 
to the new factor in political life born of the Industrial 
Revolution. But what of the great populations in factory 
towns and mining districts whose interests were as vitally 
concerned as those of their superiors? To what extent 
were they active agents in shaping the policies of which 
they to so large an extent were the very center? 

This question is difficult to answer. It can be an- 
swered adequately only after a careful examination of the 
evidence, which is often sparse and unsatisfactory. Those 
were the days when labor was yet too obscure to find its 
way easily into respectable print, and, when admitted, it 
was often only to have its aims and acts denounced or dis- 
torted. It was yet too weak to have many spokesmen of 
its own in the press, in parliament, or in the public at 
large. Yet a careful searching of the extreme liberal press, 
of the pamphlet literature, which reached considerable pro- 
portions at times when the working classes were especially 


8 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


under discussion, as in 1859 and 1866, and of the few or- 
gans of working-class expression, such as their trade-union 
documents and the few weekly newspapers that they put 
out or supported, together with an examination of dis- 
cussions in parliament and reports of commissions—this 
accumulation of evidence seems to warrant certain con- 
clusions that can be accepted as safe. Some of these con- 
clusions have already been embodied in Mr. and Mrs. 
Webb’s History of Trade Unionism. Others have been 
touched upon more or less sketchily in Beer’s History of 
British Socialism and in certain biographies of men such 
as Bright and Gladstone. But no extended effort to re- 
construct the political thought and action of the whole body 
of English workingmen in this transitional quarter of a 
century has yet been made, the reason being, doubtless, that 
the period seemed to promise so slight a yield in the politi- 
cal field, as compared with the economic, as scarcely to war- 
rant the effort. 

And yet beween 1850 and 1870 political developments 
were taking place which meant for the first time the in- 
corporation of the working classes in the body politic. It 
would be most unlikely that they played a negligible part in 
effecting changes so vital to themselves, or that the changes 
could have taken place without their participation. If they 
were being incorporated in the body of voters, it meant 
that they had to enter into political relations with other 
classes and groups; adjustments of policy had to be made 
according to interests, and certainly it would be dangerous 
to assume that the millions of men who were fashioning 
such effective instruments in the economic field as trade- 
unions and cooperative societies were wholly passive in the 
hands of upper-class manipulators when it came to politics. 

The argument has been generally accepted that this 
very absorption of the working classes in their attempts to 


THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD 9 


work out their redemption along economic lines did in fact 
render them passive in political matters; that they ceased 
after 1850 to trust in political methods. This argument, 
however, requires certain modifications. It could apply in 
its entirety only to that minority of the working classes who 
during this period were being directly benefited by the 
various working-class organizations. These doubtless were 
the most progressive elements, but they cannot be taken to 
stand for the whole of their class. The fact is, that just at 
this time they were beginning to take on the characteristics 
of an aristocracy of labor, apart from the rank and file.?' 
Furthermore, even organized labor intermittently recognized 
the bearing of politics upon economic status. Finally, 
this argument assumes that the working classes had no 
motive in seeking political power except for the advance- 
ment of their economic interests. In a preceding para- 
graph the statement was made that in the minds of the 
majority of the upper classes the economic implications 
of democracy were of paramount concern. ‘That state- 
ment designedly excluded the working classes, with the 
purpose of later making distinctions somewhat fine, but 
fundamental. 

Chartism bequeathed to the next generation of work- 
ingmen two potent ideas which bear on this question. One 
was that until the workers gained political power their 
social status could not be greatly improved. They would 
always be at the mercy of the capitalists who, through 
their control of the government, would manipulate taxa- * 
tion, the public debt, the currency, the poor laws, and the 
regulations as to property and profits solely for their own 
benefit. If workingmen could carry their democratic pro- 
gram, it would give them control of parliament and 


* Sidney and Beatrice Webb, History of Trade Unionism, London, 
1920, pp. 217, 218. 


10 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


power to reverse the process. A second legacy of Chartism 
was a belief in the rightness of democracy. To its more 
enlightened followers, Chartism was not just a “knife 
and fork question.” It was justice. It was a recognition 
of the dignity of humanity. It would remove from labor 
the brand of an inferior caste. It would permit working- 
men to stand with feet firmly planted on the solid ground 
of citizenship and look the world in the face with the as- 
surance of self-respect. 

The heirs of these two Chartist conceptions retained 
or modified them according to changed conditions. The 
need of an economic revolution became gradually less evi- 
dent after 1850, and the possibility of it was by that date 
known to most to be hopeless. Conditions of labor were 
still harsh, but the more progressive workingmen, despair- 
ing of direct Chartist methods, turned to those that could 
be undertaken without political power, chiefly: trade-unions 
and cooperation. These methods won their way and, to- 
gether with other forces making for general prosperity, be- 
gan to effect a gradual amelioration of conditions for the 
favored minority, and to a smaller extent for the masses. 

It became at once evident, however, that the adoption 
of these non-political methods did not obviate the need of 
political power. This need merely assumed an altered 
shape. Politicalspower was now required to safeguard the 
new methods themselves. Restrictive laws on organizations 
and special legislation against labor had to be combated. 
And so workingmen found the general Chartist principle of 
political power as a lever for economic advancement still in- 
dispensable ; only now it was to be political power acting indi- 

*For evidence of the prevalence of the belief in natural right cf. 
M. Beer, History of British Socialism, I. 288 ff; J. West, History of 
the Chartist Movement, pp. 81 ff; M. Hovell, History of the Chartist 
Movement, p. 30; William Lovett, Life and Struggles of Wm. Lovett 


in oy Pursuit of Bread, Knowledge and Freedom, etc., London, 1876, 
Dp. J 


THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD 11 


rectly through the promotion of voluntary effort rather than 
through direct, social legislation. The middle and upper 
classes sensed the reality behind the indirection. What 
difference if competitive economics was to be set aside by 
the direct legislation of the Chartist, or thwarted by the 
non-political interference of the trade-unionist ? 

Working-class leaders, therefore, like their Chartist 
predecessors, realized the necessity of a democratic reform 
of parliament as an auxiliary to the economic advancement 
of their class. The Chartists had believed in the independent 
political action of labor. The newer generation of labor 
leaders did not; but they could not allow the possibility of 
such a policy wholly to lapse. The mere discussion of that 
possibility acted as a coercive influence upon those inclined 
to be unresponsive to, or afraid of, labor’s demands. 

These considerations afford one reason for continued 
working-class political interest during the years under 
discussion. This general fact has to a certain extent been 
recognized by students of the history of English labor. The 
steadiness and persistence with which such motives spurred 
labor on to political activity in this period, supposed to be 
so non-political, have, however, never been adequately 
described. This aspect of the working-class demand for the 
franchise was apparent to the more discerning of the upper 
and middle classes and served to weaken the support the 
cause of franchise reform was receiving from certain sec- 
tions of these classes on other grounds. Only when these 
facts are duly perceived can we understand this period of 
transition and of readjustment in the political relation- 
ships of classes. 

Another aspect of the lingering Chartist influence con- 
sists in the persistence of unorthodox economic ideas long 
after 1850. Working-class leaders were coming to rely 
‘ upon methods of self-help rather than upon state action, 


12 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


it is true. In order to gain an opportunity to apply these 
new methods, they had to make it clear that they were not 
attacking the existing system. They were forced to defend 
their actions on the ground of individualistic, competitive 
economics.t. But this economic theory was adopted by 
trade-unionists slowly and largely from motives of expedi- 
ency, at least up to the decade of the seventies. They 
never ceased to be inconsistent and haphazard in their ap- 
plication of laissez faire to labor problems.” For instance, 
factory legislation was uninterruptedly advocated by trade- 
unionists. As for the non-unionized masses of labor, 
research reveals scattered but significant evidence of the 
steady persistence of heterodox economic views among 
them. This fact is of considerable importance politically, 
as modifying the general attitude of class to class. It was 
difficult for the average middle-class politicians to differ- 
entiate the various sections of the working-class world and 
estimate the importance of their opinions accordingly. 

In such ways as these did the Chartist conception of 
political power as a means to economic ends, however dis- 
guised or diluted, continue to be a political factor. How 
important a factor it was has never been adequately ap- 
' praised. 

The influence of the second inheritance from Chartism 
—a belief in the suffrage as a right—has been to a large 
extent ignored. A careful study of the literature of the 
period leaves no doubt that the belief that the rights of 
citizenship should go with its duties was ineradicably lodged 
in the minds of the great masses of working men, trade- 
unionists and non-trade-unionists alike. The vote was not 
property nor a trust in the hands of a few for the many. 


* Webb, op. cit., pp. 201, 239. 

*See Webb, op. cit., pp. 368-70, for a discussion of this change of 
theory. Two strong groups of unions never adopted middle-class eco- 
nomics; namely, the cotton operatives and the coal miners. 


THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD 13 


“ 
It was a right due to every full-grown man in England. 


Without it the laborer, even though a member of a power- 
ful trade society or holder of shares in a coOperative store, 
bore the stigma of social and civic inferiority. He was 
something less than an Englishman. Undeviatingly, there- 
fore, the great body of the working classes held in their 
hearts to the spirit of the six points of the Charter. They 
cherished it all the more as they advanced in self-respect. 
Almost without exception, every expression of working- 
class opinion on the franchise between 1850 and 1867 was 
in favor of manhood suffrage, and during this period no 
other slogan could win a rousing response from the un- 
enfranchised masses. The influence of this allegiance to 
democracy was conspicuous. 

It will be objected, perhaps, that there was no agitation 
during this period. No agitation took place comparable 
with that of 1832 or 1842, certainly. Such agitation is 
usually due to the pressure of grievances not to be borne, 
in the shape of naked physical suffering or of actual op- 
pression on a wide scale. Such grievances were decreasing 
after 1850. It is no valid argument, therefore, to maintain 
that the absence of agitation proves the absence of political 
interest and conviction. On the contrary, given the absence 
of those causes without which no mass agitation had ever 
taken place in England, the volume of evidence that exists 
as to the part taken in politics by men who had not even 
the right to direct participation therein argues a notable 
amount of interest and thought. Nor were there wanting 
the definite formulation and promotion of policies accord- 
ing to carefully reasoned plans. Methods and policies had 
to be different after 1850, because conditions changed, 
and theories gradually changed with them. But method 
and policy both existed and were acted upon with a fair 
degree of steadiness. In place of agitation, there was 


14 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


steady pressure. Above all, the pressure was exerted not 
by labor alone, but in conjunction with strong groups from 
the middle classes. For labor’s new policy came to be not 
independent action, but coéperation with those of the other 
classes who would codperate. This fact is vital, not only 
in the political history of labor, but also in that of England 
as a whole. It meant the transformation of Whiggism 
into Liberalism, or better into Liberal-Laborism, and the 
further development of Conservatism in the direction of 
Tory democracy. Participating in this evolutionary pro- 
cess, guiding or being guided by it, were Disraeli, the 
adjustor of the landed classes to democracy ; the Manchester 
School under Bright; the nonconformists under Edward | 
Baines and Samuel Morley; certain prominent indepen- 
dent radicals of such varying types as John Stuart Mill 
and Joseph Cowen, the miners’ champion of Tyneside; 
and, conspicuously in its later phase, Gladstone, who drew 
to himself the diverse liberal currents and became the em- 
bodiment of the new Liberalism. Not least among the 
forces reshaping parties and policies were the leaders and 
masses in the ranks of labor. Their general policy was, 
to state it again, cooperation with the middle classes. But, 
again to repeat for the sake of emphasis, in so far as the 
economic aspect of the issue, whether in the guise of trade- 
unionism or not, lifted its head, just so far did the policy 
of cooperation find itself in difficult straits. 

All of these currents and cross-currents in English 
politics in this third quarter of the nineteenth century be- 
came inevitably complicated with others remotely related, 
such as foreign policy and the Irish question. The sum of 
all creates the intricate fabric of English politics during a 
period when the impact of the new and growing industrial- 
ism was forcing a continual readjustment in conformity 
with its needs. 


THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PERIOD 15 


The preceding pages have attempted to present in sum- 
mary the developments in English politics which it is the 
task of the remainder of this discussion to endeavor to 
make as clear as possible in detail. The necessity must be 
held in mind of considering the problems that present them- 
selves from two points of view—from that of the upper 
and middle classes, as well as from that of the working 
classes themselves. The object will be to place labor in its 
relation to the politics of the period as a whole. 


CHAPTER II 


A NEW POLICY: CONDITIONS ATTENDING 
ITS INAUGURATION 

When workingmen stopped to take stock of their sit- 
uation as the second half of the nineteenth century opened, 
they were confronted on every hand with difficulty and un- 
certainty. In the decades just passed they had been driven 
by direst necessity to attempt to devise means of protection 
against the social and economic forces that had threatened 
to submerge them. An appeal to the government for legisla- 
tive action had tardily resulted in incipient factory legisla- 
tion because supported by a section of upper-class opinion.* 
Trade-unions had been organized, but up to 1850 were 
more of the nature of a series of experiments in organiza- 
tion and method than effective weapons of defence.” 
Excursions into Owenism and syndicalism proved fruitless 
of benefit. Finally, the desperate workingmen of the 
thirties and forties, convinced that all measures short of 
a social revolution were ineffective in the face of the enor- 
mity of existing evils, became alienated completely from all 
other classes in the state and set about organizing the great 
class movement known as Chartism. 

Their social and political isolation and their conscious- 
ness of the lack of a will on the part of the governing 
classes to seek for an adequate solution of their problems 
had developed in English workingmen a sense of class 

*See G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz, Social Peace, a Study of the Trade 
Union Movement in England, London, 1893 (tr. Wicksteed and Ed. 
Wallas), pp. 67-75, for interesting comments upon the Conservative atti- 
tude. For the influence of the Coleridgean school, see Beer, History of 
British Socialism, I. 273-4; II. 177. For factory legislation, see B. L. 
Hutchins and A. Harrison, A History of Factory Legislation, London, 


1911, pp. 1-95. 
* Webb, op. cit., ch. iti, and pp. 137-154, 170-174. 


A NEW POLICY 17 


solidarity. The pioneers of Ricardian socialism preached 
to them the gospel of the right to the whole produce of 
labor. This added to their class consciousness the cement- 
ing force of an intellectual sanction and the objective of a 
social revolution. The fact that these workers were Eng- 
lishmen with strong traditions of constitutional action de- 
termined the method whereby they strove to effect the 
sweeping changes desired. That method was by attempting 
to secure control of parliament through the enactment of 
complete democracy. Chattism was, therefore, a class 
movement for economic and social ends by political means.* 

The movement was without a possibility of success. The 
masses who supported it were not capable of reasoned and 
organized action. Suffering impelled them to demonstrate 
and demand, but without a sufficient understanding of the 
fundamental elements in their problem. The leaders were 
torn between two opposing policies and were sometimes, 
conspicuously in the case of Feargus O’Connor, little above 
their followers in wisdom and understanding. And finally, 
the forces of property and power arrayed against the move- 
ment insured its hopelessness from the start, unless it 
should develop into a violent revolution. This workingmen 
were not ready for. 

Chartism, however, as a political labor organization 
whose object was to promote social and economic ameliora- 
tion, made a strong appeal to the English working classes. 
Its ideals sank deep into their hearts. It continued to be 
looked back upon as right in its spirit, if wrong in its 
methods, long after it had ceased as an organized move- 

+The best discussions of Chartism are E. Dolléans, Le Chartisme, 
2 vols., Paris, 1912; M. Hovell, The Chartist Movement, Manchester, 
1918; J. West, History of the Chartist Movement, London, 1920; P. W. 
! Slosson, The Decline of the Chartist Movement, New York, 1916; and 
Beer, op. cit., 1. 280-347; II. 3-105; also F. F. Rosenblatt, The Social and 


Economic Aspect of the Chartist Movement, N. Y. 1916; and R. G. 
Gammage, The Chartist Movement, edition of 1894. 


18 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ment. By 1850 its strength had been dissipated. Num- 
erous Chartist sects, however, continued and played a larger 
part in the political world than has usually been conceded. 
One cause of the disintegration of Chartism was the gradual 
improvement of economic conditions after 1850.1 The im- 
provement was only comparative, however.? At no time in 
the decade after 1850 could the masses be said to have at- 
tained to a decent standard of living, and fluctuations of 
trade brought periodic distress. These facts go far to ex- 
plain the persistence of the unorthodox economic beliefs 
characteristic of Chartism long after the middle of the 
century, as will appear later in the course of this study. 

By 1850 the thinking portion of the working classes be- 
gan to realize that the solution of their problems would have 
to be by different methods from those which they had sup- 
ported in the years just passed. A new phase of the labor 
movement was at hand. On its economic side, it meant the 
steady perfecting of the machinery of collective bargaining 
and of codperative distribution. On its political side, it 


* Other causes were the baneful influence of O’Connor and his land 
scheme; failure of the revolution in France and of the national 
worshops (cf. Foxwell’s “Introduction” to Menger’s The Right to the 
Whole Produce of Labor, p. cl.); failure of the Owenite colony at 
Queenswood; and the emigration of many of the leading spirits of the 
movement. 

?Slosson, op. cit., p. 129, shows that wages between 1840 and 1848 
had advanced, but rose but slowly after that for several years. In the 
cotton industry only in 1852 did wages, which had fallen steadily since 
1841 except for a recovery in 1845-6, reach the average level of the bad 
years 1837-41 (p. 137). In 1853 they had risen slightly above that level, 
but by that year the prices of foodstuffs had reached a higher point 
than at any time since 1841 except in 1846-7. Then came the Crimean 
War, which pushed prices up still more and produced considerable dis- 
location of industry. The influence of the gold discoveries upon prices 
and real wages is indicated by a table in Porter, Progress of the Nation, 
p. 56, summarized as follows: between 1830 and 1852 money wages were 
fairly stationary, but prices were falling, hence real wages were rising 
slowly; 1852 to 1870, wages were “rising fast,” prices were “rising,” 
hence real wages were “rising considerably.” For a table of prices 
showing the effect of the Crimean War, see L. Levi, Annals of British 
Legislation, I. 29. 


A NEW POLICY 12 


meant the abandonment of the policy of independent class 
action in favor of the only practicable alternative; viz., an 
alliance with those elements of the middle classes with 
whom for any reason alliance was possible. The total 
abandonment of all political activity by workingmen was 
never a fact. They believed in democracy as a recognition 
of their rights and were willing to assert that belief. 
Furthermore, they were repeatedly made aware of the 
power of government to interfere with the effectiveness 
of their methods of self-help. In addition, they sought 
constantly to extend the scope of factory legislation. All 
of these reasons imposed upon the more intelligent among 
them the necessity of a continued participation in politics. 
To the first phase of this new period in the history of Eng- 
lish labor politics, it is now possible to turn. 

The work of building up a public opinion among the 
middle and working classes in favor of their political re- 
union began about 1842. The schism between them had 
developed in the years of the first reform agitation, and 
the chief reason for it had been the inherent opposition 
between political liberalism and social democracy. Francis 
Place, who understood both classes with their aims and 
creeds as few other men of the time did, sensed both the 
need and the difficulty of the cooperation of the two classes. 
He had been watching with alarm the formation of the 
group of social revolutionary thinkers among the working 
classes in London, who were later to be the creators of 
Chartism.t In 1831 they had organized the National Union 
of Working Classes (the Rotundists), which opposed 
vigorously the middle-class reform bill and finally adopted 
a social-revolutionary program to be effected by class 
action. So widespread did the influence of such teachings 

*For an account of the whole movement drawn from the Place MSS 


see G. Wallas, Life of Francis Place, pp. 265-322. See also West, 
History of the Chartist Movement, pp. 49-70. 


20 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


become, that Place and other advanced Radicals saw al- 
most equal danger in seeking the support of workingmen 
for the reform bill and in not seeking it. Without a great 
popular agitation it would be impossible to push the bill to 
safety, yet such an agitation involved the danger of a social- 
revolutionary struggle which would unite the Whigs and 
Tories against all reform. Such a conflict of interests, of 
theory, of method, and of aim, rendered the situation in- 
calculably difficult. To use the working classes, yet not 
to give them any oportunity to enforce their separate de- 
mands, was the procedure successfully followed, but it 
created angry opposition and a sense of betrayal among 
workingmen, which Place had most dreaded. He had 
feared that “the working people would see in the proceed- 
ings the old desire to use them for a purpose and then to 
abandon them. The gap between the working and middle 
classes would be widened, and the rancour that exists would 
be increased, and all chance of reconciliation put off for 
years.””? 

Before the year was out the people were “awake to the 
treason of their allies,’? as Place had prohesied would 
happen when “the Reformed House of Commons 
shall, as it must, prove how inadequate will be the Reform 
Bill to satisfy the expections of the people.” In 1834 came 
the new Poor Law.* By 1835 Place saw that the Radicals, 
even Hume, were not willing to press for democratic re- 
forms in the House.* Fierce hatred of employers was 
rapidly developing around the prosecutions of trade-un- 
ionists, as in the cases of the Dorchester laborers and the 


*Wallas, Life of Place, p. 281. 

?W. J. Linton (a Chartist) on the “History of Chartism” in the 
English Republic, Vol. 1851-1855, pp. 78 ff. 

® Schulze-Gaevernitz, Social Peace, p. 42, calls this-“the signal for 
the dissolution of the union between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.” 

‘Wallas, Life of Place, pp. 334, 351. 








A NEW POLICY 21 


Glasgow cotton spinners.‘ There was, also, united op- 
position to industrial measures by most of the upper-class 
groups.” By 1836 the alienation of workingmen from 
their political allies was complete, and the great working- 
class movement had begun. 

By 1840, however, the difficulties in the way of the 
success of independent working-class action began to be 
apparent to the more enlightened of its adherents. The 
middle-class Radicals at the same time began to consider 
the possibility of a reconciliation. Hume interrogated 
Place in 1840 on the chances of workingmen following if he 
would take the lead in demanding in parliament as many 
points of the Charter as they could get. Place advised 
patience. In the meanwhile, he was, as Wallas expresses 
it, trying to coach the middle-class Radicals in the difficult 
art of acting with the suspicious and intractable working- 
men of that day. The situation had become complicated by 
the question of repealing the Corn Laws, which was opened 
by the League at the moment the Charter was being 
formulated. Chartists believed this to be a device to thwart 
their movement and that the middle classes were not sin- 
cere in their professions of zeal for the welfare of the work- 
ing class in the repeal agitation, since they refused as- 
sistance in gaining the Charter, which would render possible 
at once the repeal of all obnoxious laws. But by 1840 
or 1841 the League was beginning to win over the upper- 
grade artisans and operatives.* Lovett (in prison) cor- 


+ Webb, op. cit., pp. 144 ff. and pp. 170 ff. 

?J. H. Rose, Rise of Democracy, p. 61. Hutchins and Harrison, A 
History of Factory Legislation, pp. 1-95, passim, for the attitude of 
the various classes toward factory legislation. E. Hodder, Life and 
Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, London, 1888, II. 30, 82. 

*For relations between Chartists and the Anti-Corn Law League see 
Dolléans, Le Chartisme, II. 16-90; Hovell, op. cit., pp. 193ff.; Lovett, 
Life and Struggles, p.-:173; R. Garnett, Life of W. J. Fox, pp. 255-9; 
T. Frost, Forty Years’ Recollections, Literary and Political, London, 
1880, pp. 26, 27; H. Solly, These Eighty Years, London, 1893, I. 569. 


22 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


responded with Place, each trying to win the other to the 
support of his movement. There was among the middle 
classes a distinct and growing tendency to make overtures 
to Chartists, for the former began to realize the great ex- 
tent of the Chartist agitation and also the forbidding at- 
titude of the government toward any further electoral re- 
form’ and toward the repeal of the Corn Laws.” Cer- 
tain Chartist leaders were willing to meet them half way, 
notably Lovett, Bronterre O’Brien, and George Jacob 
Holyoake. Lovett in 1841 tried to form a new association 
to be open to “all creeds, classes and opinions,” which 
should work toward promoting education and creating a 
public opinion in favor of the Charter. It received 
nominal support from several Radical leaders—Place, 
Hume, John Stuart Mill, Lord Brougham, Milner Gibson, 
James Stansfeld, and T. S. Duncombe; in fact, “virtually 
all the intellectual Liberals.”* At about the same time, 
Place founded the “Metropolitan Parliamentary Reform 
Association” for the purpose of promoting reconciliation. 
Its objects were to be the same as those of the Charter, 
though the word Charter was not to be used. All the 
Radical members of parliament joined it, but it lasted only 
a year.° 

Of all the tentative efforts at reunion of the two classes 
put forward at this time, however, the most significant and 
the most instructive was that called the Complete Suffrage 


Hovell (p. 215) says every variety and combination of views on the 
subject existed among Chartists. Dolléans thinks Chartists were almost 
universally hostile (II. 23). He states that the free traders used every 
means to give the public the impression that the majority of working- 
men were favorable to the League, but this was not true. Those favor- 
able to the League were in a great minority (II. 29-90). 

* Russell’s declaration of finality was made in 1837. 

* Beer, op. cit., II. pp. 113-114. 

“Lovett, Life, p. 248; Hovell, op cit., pp. 208, 209; West, op. cit., 
pp. 159, 160, 174. 

“West, op. cit., p. 160. 

° West, op. cit., p. 179. 


A NEW POLICY 23 


Movement. It was a deliberate overture made by the free- 
traders and Radicals to the Chartists, but the inspiration 
of it was as much nonconformist as free-trade or Radical. 
This is a significant fact. It shows for the first time since 
1832 the three great groups advancing toward the alliance 
that was later to command very largely the course of 
political events and result in the new Liberal party of Glad- 
stone. These groups were the Manchester School, the non- 
conformists,t and labor. All of them might be induced to 
meet on the common ground of the old Radical democratic 
platform. It was their diverse economic interests that made 
such a rapprochement difficult. The nonconformist group 
now undertook to be the mediators, standing, as they did, 
in close sympathy with both of the other groups and be- 
lieving in democracy on the Manchester and Radical grounds 
of its necessity for good government and on the religious 
ground that “every man should be treated as if he had 
within him the germs of a noble character.’””” 

The immediate inspiration of the new movement was 
a series of articles in the Nonconformist®? by Edward 


*Many nonconformist bodies were distinctly opposed to politics 
at this date, but radical groups among them were developing a political 
interest and program. The most conservative were the Wesleyan 
Methodists; the most democratic and advanced were Baptists and Uni- 
tarians. For an interesting discussion of this, see H. U. Faulkner, 
Chartism and the Churches, N. Y., 1916, pp. 84-120. 

*Thus Rose, The Rise of Democracy, p. 126, describes Sturge and 
other prominent nonconformists of the time. Also see S. Hobhouse, 
Joseph Sturge, His Life and Work, London, 1919, p. 66, for a speech 
made by Sturge in 1840 setting forth a typical nonconformist program 
of reforms; namely, separation of Church and state, free trade, wide 
extension of the franchise, the ballot, abolition of the property qualifi- 
cation, abolition of capital punishment and of slavery. Sturge, says 
Hobhouse, soon came to believe in all the points of the Charter. E. 
Barker, English Political Thought from Herbert Spencer to the Present 
Day, p. 120, says one root of the belief in natural rights has been Dissent, 
with its emphasis on the independence of conscience. The doctrine of 
natural rights has always been a chief basis of the demand for uni- 
versal suffrage. 


“Founded in 1841 by the radical wing of the Congregationalists 
who were urging the disestablishment question upon the official leaders, 


24 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Miall, its editor, in 1841 on the subject of “The reconcilia- 
tion between the Middle and Labouring Classes.” Joseph 
Sturge had the articles published as a pamphlet. It reached 
a fortieth edition in the course of several years.* 
Joseph Sturge became advocate and organizer of the new 
movement. He was a Friend, a Corn Law Leaguer, and 
an alderman of Birmingham. He negotiated with Cobden 
concerning the project, and Cobden expressed both his ap- 
proval of Sturge’s leadership and his sense of the diffi- 
culties ahead by writing him: “You have so much of es- 
tablished reputation to fall back upon, that your standing 
with the middle classes would not be endangered by a 
course which might peril the character and endanger the 
usefulness of most others.”? Sturge believed democracy 
to be the only means of relief from the evils of the time. 
He also believed that Chartism had come then (in 1841) 
to a parting of the ways, when its intelligent section, now 
advocating persuasion and education against a policy of 
physical force, ought to be supported in its efforts. 

Sturge, therefore, early in 1842, at the close of an Anti- 
Corn Law League meeting in Manchester, gathered a large 
conference, with Place in the chair, at which he proposed the 
initiation of a movement to secure for the people “the 
fair, full, and free exercise of the elective franchise.” The 
free-traders felt urgent need of the support of the factory 
operatives,? and knew that some of the anti-O’Connorite 
Chartists were coming to believe in free trade. The hostility 
between the two industrial classes seemed temporarily to 
be much assuaged. The Spectator, for instance, had come 


who opposed any political action (Faulkner, op. cit., p. 98). It became 
a spokesman for extreme liberalism in all its phases. 


*Statement made by R. Kell in nominating Miall for Bradford in 
1869, reported in the Morning Star, October 2, 1869. Also see Hobhouse, 
op. cit., p. 72, and West, op. cit., p. 173 


? Hobhouse, op. cit., p. 72. 
* Rose, op. cit., p. 121. 


AY NEW POLICY 25 


out for the six points of the Charter.1 The project re- 
ceived without difficulty a large free-trade and Radical sup- 
port, including that of Cobden, Bright, W. J. Fox (Unitarian 
preacher and orator for the Anti-Corn Law League), 
Sharman Crawford, M.P., the Reverend Thomas Spencer, 
George Thompson, M.P., and others.2, The proposed 
movement was welcomed by an influential Chartist section, 
especially by Lovett and O’Brien. At a conference of both 
classes in Birmingham it was the endeavor of the middle 
classes to present the Chartist program, without in any way 
acknowledging the Chartist organization. The National 
Complete Suffrage Union was formed, the matter of draw- 
ing up its program being deferred to a later time. The 
movement spread to a great many industrial towns. 

But the project was foredoomed to failure because the 
time for it was not yet ripe. The mass of the working- 
men were still too revolutionary, and times were desperately 
hard. A few months after the formation of the Union 
came an attempt at a general strike in Lancashire, followed 
by wholesale arrests, when feelings on both sides became 
exasperated anew. The majority of operatives and miners 
were not ready for laissez faire, but still adhered to a belief 
in state interference, and so long as they held that view 
the gulf between them and the capitalist class was un- 
bridgeable. The more violent party of Chartists de- 
nounced the move as treachery and an attempt to weaken 
the class war.? The inevitable break came even among the 

*Statement made in West, op. cit., p. 174. 

? The large religious element in its support is shown by the fact that 
it had: about two hundred ministers among its adherents, and by the 
general tenor of its petition to parliament in April, 1842, which based 
its appeal for universal suffrage upon natural right, British constitu- 
tional precedent with regard to taxation and representation, and upon 
“holy religion.” This petition is quoted entire in Faulkner, op. cit., 
mppyds pe 121: 

*O’Connor and the Northern Star. See Beer, op. cit., 11. 125. Dol- 


léans, op. cit., Vol. II. 102 ff., gives a speech of G. J. Harney at Shef- 
field which sums up the Chartist arguments against the movement. 


26 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


adherents of the movement at the end of the first year over 
the question of adopting the official program of the Union. 
The middle-class members of the committee ignored Lovett 
and the other working-class members and tried to avoid 
adopting the term “Charter,” which Lovett considered a 
vital point. This break was not over the matter of mere 
words, as Beer points out, but was because the Charter 
had come to signify a whole program of social reform. To 
give that up would be to exchange social democracy for 
political.* 

Upon this rock the Complete Suffrage Movement split. 
“Apparently, then, class jealousy was more powerful than 
all attempts at conciliation, and the secret or openly ex- 
pressed desires of the working-men levellers were too 
strong to admit any thorough cooperation with middle-class 
democrats like Joseph Sturge, who sought parliamentary 
reform only for the redress of the more glaring grievances 
of the age.’* To such an alliance upon such terms 
workingmen were eventually to come. The Complete 
Suffrage Movement prefigured it and revealed the funda- 
mental nature of the obstacles to its realization. The 
evolution of an opinion among the working classes upon 
social issues that would be more in harmony with that of 
middle-class Radicals, and, on the part of the Radicals, an 
increased sense of their dependence upon democratic sup- 


* Beer, op. cit., II. 128, 129. 

* Rose, op. cit., p. 125. Further details of this most ri eae 
movement are in West, op. cit., pp. 173-199; Dolléans, of. cit., II. 90 ff.; 
Hovell, op. cit., pp. 242-265; Lovett, Life, pp. 262- 289. He states that 
at the Birmingham conference one object was to get workingmen to 
promise to use the vote for free trade (p. 279). The debate in parliament 
on the second Chartist petition, in 1842, is significant. Several free- 
traders spoke in support of the motion to permit the petitioners to appear 
at the bar of the House. On this occasion Lord John Russell and 
Macaulay both opposed, on the ground that universal suffrage would 
mean the destruction of the institutions of the country, which were based 
on property. For an account of this see Beer, op. cit., II. 135-7. 


A NEW POLICY 27 


port—these were the two prerequisites. To a study of such 
developments let us now turn. 

The Corn Law movement absorbed the attention of the 
Radicals from the failure of the Complete Suffrage Move- 
ment to the free-trade victory of 1846. The unity of the 
working-class agitation had been shattered to fragments, 
only temporarily reaching a state of coherence again in 
1848. Chartism, as a body of ideas, however, was still 
vigorously propagated by a multitude of associations withy 
most diverse panaceas for the ills of the times. By 1847 
the Manchester leaders were free to take up again the 
question of democracy. Their interest in it lay in the fact 
that they needed it to complete their victory over the landed 
interests, against which the war had not by any means 
ended. Ricardo taught them that the interests of industry 
and land were diametrically opposed, since rents and 
profits varied inevitably in inverse ratio.’ Protection must 
be totally abolished and trade set free from every restric- 
tion; profits from industry must be increased and those 
from land decreased by a substitution of taxation upon real 
property for taxation of industry; and the whole burden of 
taxation must be lightened by a policy of rigorous economy 
at home and peace abroad. To put into effect these policies, 
which would complete the emancipation of capitalistic in- 
dustry and open up to it vistas of almost unlimited ex- 
pansion, more power in parliament was needed by the in- 
dustrial classes. A wide extension of the franchise and a 
redistribution of seats in favor of the towns and the in- 
dustrial counties became, therefore, an essential feature of 
their political objective. To the slogans peace and re-y, 
trenchment was added, therefore, a third—reform. 


*Cf. Beer, op. cit., I. 149, 153. Foxwell, in the “Introduction” to 
Menger, The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour, p. xli, says that 
Ricardo’s teachings made political economy the tool of a political party. 


28 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Such was the cry of the Manchester School. It was also 
the cry of the nonconformists. Many of the latter ad- 
vocated peace from principle, and an increasing number 
saw the need of electoral reform in order to effect an ob- 
ject to them most important, the establishment of the re- 
ligious equality. If the working classes could be induced 
also to accept this program, without any sinister interpreta- 
tions, then a power could be created in England before 
which no opposition could stand. The nature of the Man- 
chester policy and its relation both to the democracy and 
to its opponents, the territorial party, was expressed with 
much discernment by a working-class journal in the early 
fifties. The Manchester party, it declared, represented 
commerce in its inevitable war with feudalism, and this 
gave them popular support because of the long-cherished 
antipathy of the people to the dominance of the territorial 
aristocracy. They advocated enfranchisement of the people 
because they knew that political strength came from them 
and because “their family traditions are those of the peo- 
ple.” But, on the other hand, theirs was decidedly a class 
movement, and democracy knows no class. Hence they 
feared the people. So also did their enemies, the aristocracy. 
Both would try to call in the aid of the people in their war 
with each other. All sorts of bait would be offered them. 
The traders disliked social changes more than political, the 
aristocracy, political more than social; this indicated the 
manner in which tenders would be made to the people.? 

By “reform” the Radicals meant more than mere 
electoral reform. This was to be preliminary to a long 
program of changes, which should completely liberalize 
English institutions in harmony with Radical and Dissent- 
ing views, such as colonial reform, prison reform, fiscal 
reform, drink reform, army reform, religious reform, edu- 


* The Political Examiner, two articles, April 5 and May 11, 1853. 


A NEW POLICY 29 


cational reform, and reform of the press laws.’ Practi- 
cally all of these measures would appeal to working-class 
sympathy, and some of them had been, or soon were to be 
made, distinctly working-class issues, as for example edu- 
cation and reform of the press laws. On the broad basis 
of liberalism, therefore, it was certainly not vain to hope 
for the political assimilation of the two great industrial 
groups with each other. The fact that they were both in- 
dustrial ought irresistibly to compel united action against 
their common opponents, the landlords; and it would so 
compel it if the working classes could be made to understand 
political economy and know that their interests were not 
diverse from, but were intimately bound up with, those of 
the employing class and that both must obey the irrefragable 
laws of economics for their common salvation. The most 
serious obstacles to this desired consummation were likely 
to be two: working-class belief in the antagonism of their 
class interests to those of capital and the appeal of Conserva- 
tism to certain working-class elements and interests, such 
as had produced Tory-Chartism and was even now produc- 
ing Tory-democracy. 

In 1848 efforts at reunion were revived in earnest. As 
Morley, in his life of Cobden, points out, the moment 
seemed opportune for the Radicals to form a strong party.? 
The old parties were confused and disintegrated over the 
repeal of the Corn Laws. Further, the strength of labor as 
an organized movement had been hopelessly broken, it ap- 
peared. Bright, in consideration of all these elements in 
the situation, began early in this year to urge the forma- 
tion of a new party along the lines of the Anti-Corn Law 
League, which should gather up the energy of the innum-, 

*For a catalogue of such measures advocated by a typical Radical 


and nonconformist, see Garnett, Life of Fox, pp. 325-6, 353. Also see 
the introduction, p. viii. 


*J. Morley, Life of Richard Cobden, Boston, 1890, p. 334. 


30 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


erable little movements and associations that were spring- 
ing up in all parts of the country.’ To Villiers he wrote: 
“We can have a party out of doors more formidable than 
we had in the League and can work the Constitution so as 
to reform it through itself.”? He wished to call it the 
“Commons’ League.” Financial and parliamentary reform! 
were to be its two objects; the tactics to consist in strength- 
ening the party by attending to the registration of voters, 
increasing the number of county voters in towns by the 
promotion of the purchase of forty-shilling freeholds, and 
general organization and propaganda. But Cobden was not 
sympathetic. He declared that he was not so sanguine as 
he used to be as to the good effect of a wide extension of 
the franchise.* He believed they should concentrate upon 
financial reform and seek to extend the franchise only by 
the freehold scheme. 

In the meantime, others were moving toward the same 
general end. Joseph Hume, at the time of the spectacular 
failure of the Chartist demonstration in April, had invited 
the working classes through O’Connor to codperate with 
him in an attempt to gain a substantial measure of reform.* 
O’Connor stated that he had become convinced of the 
expediency of abating some of the demands of the Charter 
for the sake of gaining the measures Hume advocated, on 
the condition of the sincerity of Hume and his followers, 
and that he (O’Connor) had so advised his supporters. 
Hume’s program came to be called the “Little Charter,” 
its demands being household suffrage, the ballot, triennial 
parliaments, and a more equal distribution of seats according 
to population. When Hume brought it up in the House 

*G. M. Trevelyan, Life of John Bright, p. 183. 

? [bid., p. 184. 

* Morley, op. cit., p. 335. 

“From remarks by O’Connor in the House of Commons in con- 


nection with the postponement of Hume’s bill. Hansard, IIC. 1307-8. 
This was in May. 


A NEW POLICY 31 


in 1848, it received the support in debate of Cobden, R. 
Bernal Osborne, and C. P. Villiers, and, in the division, 
of eighty-four members to three hundred and fifty-one in 
opposition. The supporters included most of those Radicals 
who were to take the lead for fifteen years in promoting the 
movement now begun—Manchesterites like Bright, Cobden, 
and Gibson; the nonconformists, Fox, Berkeley, and 
Trelawney;! independent Radicals like Sir De Lacy 
Evans, a metropolitan member, and Thomas Wakley; and 
the friends of the Chartists, Sharman Crawford, Sir 
Joshua Walmsley, and Colonel Perronet Thompson. In 
the opposition were the solid phalanxes of Whigs and Con- 
servatives.” 

Still other groups were trying to promote a new politi- 
cal alignment. Sturge again offered to Chartists to adopt 
universal suffrage as the basis of a party. Edward Miall’s 
tract, which had inspired the Complete Suffrage Movement, 
was reprinted and was discussed favorably in Chartist 
journals.* The principle of universal suffrage was, 
throughout 1848, advocated in several journals—Douglas 
Jerrold’s Weekly Newspaper, the Leeds Times, the Non- 
conformist, and another important journal of Dissent, the 
British Banner.? 

Thus from several middle-class quarters came _tenta- 
tive offers of coalition. The working classes on their side 
found themselves torn with doubt and dissension on the 
question of the attitude to be assumed toward the pro- 
posed policy. There were two related elements in their 
problem: could and should class activity be abandoned, and, 


*Berkeley soon became the maker of an annual motion for the 
ballot, and Trelawney of one for the abolition of church rates. 


*For the debate and vote, see Hansard, C. 156 to 226. 
* The English Republic, February 5, 1852. 
“The Republican (ed. by the Chartist, G. G. Harding), 1848. 


°*Enumerated in The People (ed. by the Chartist, J. Barker, at 
Wortley), May 27, 1848, in an article on “Chartism and Unitarians.” 


32 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


secondly, could their social objectives be modified and 
should they be divorced from politics? Upon the answers 
to these questions hinged both their acceptance of middle- 
class overtures and the very continuance of such overtures. 
In 1848-50 there could be no unanimous answer. Utter 
confusion of aim existed. Factions innumerable were 
proposing schemes as varied as they were numerous. A 
survey of the most important of these reveals the disunion 
that prevailed. 

Some groups of workingmen were beginning to place 
their whole faith in the codperative movement. Their 
conception of cooperation was not yet free, however, from 
a belief in it as an agency for the redemption of the wage- 
earning classes. Christian Socialism, from 1848, became 
a potent influence to this end.1. The humanitarian and 
religious feelings of such men as Frederick Denison 
Maurice, Charles Kingsley, and J. M. Ludlow had nothing 
but scathing condemnation for the existing competitive sys- 
tem, with its apparently inevitable consequence of dividing 
class from class and increasing the wealth of the rich and 
the poverty of the poor. This group of earnest friends of 
labor had met in the week following the Chartist failure 
of April 10 and organized a movement to direct working- 
class energies into cooperative enterprise, which would 
develop a Christian society instead of the cut-throat régime 
of individualism.2 They began in May to issue their short- 
lived Politics for the People. Its chief burden was that gov- 
ernment cannot touch the deepest social ills and that Chart- 


*See C. W. Stubbs, Charles Kingsley and the Christian Social 
Movement, N. Y., 1899; H. De B. Gibbons, English Social Reformers, 
London, 1892; Charles Kingsley, Yeast, and Alton Locke, London, 1850; 
Politics for the People; The Christian Socialist; and The Journal of 
Association, three Christian Socialist journals that followed each other 
in rapid succession, 1848-1852; and C. E. Raven, Christian Socialism, 
London, 1920. 


2 Stubbs, of. cit., pp. 103, 104. 


A NEW POLICY 33 


ism was thus based upon a false foundation. The Charter, 
according to Kingsley, was “a poor, bald, constitution- 
mongering cry as I ever heard. That French cry of the 
‘Organization of Labour’ is worth a thousand of it, and yet 
that does not go to the bottom of the matter by many a 
mile’? A moral and religious revolution that would 
socialize industry alone would bring permanent social peace. 
Conferences with Chartists and trade-unionists were held 
constantly during 1848-50, and competition was denounced 
as “‘a hateful, devilish theory which must be fought with to 
the death.”* Attempts were made to organize cooperative 
production among the most oppressed trades, as the tailors, 
and in 1850 the Society for the Promotion of Working- 
Men’s Associations was formed, tracts were issued, and the 
influence of the movement became fairly widespread. 

Its political influence was to depreciate all political ac- 
tivity and interest. Many leaders were not democrats. 
Maurice was not, nor Kingsley; Ludlow, Thomas Hughes, 
and Lloyd Jones were, whole-heartedly.* Politically, it 
was also an influence working against harmony between 
the middle and working classes because of antagonistic 
economic interests and theories. Kingsley, says Beer, be- 


*Thus Kingsley wrote to Chartists, in Politics for the People, 
May 13, 1848: “I think you have fallen into . . . the mistake of 
fancying that legislative reform is social reform, or that men’s hearts 
can be changed by Act of Parliament.” Quoted also in Stubbs, op. cit., 
ip) LZ, 

? Stubbs, op. cit., p. 117. 

me p. 129. Also C. E. Raven, Christian Socialism, London, 1920, 
p. z 

*See C. F. G. Masterman, F. D. Maurice, London, 1907, p. 61. He 
said Maurice’s’ ideal was the Tory one “of kings reigning by the grace 
of God.” Also, F. Maurice, Life of F. D. Maurice, N. Y., 1884, II. 29. 
As to Kingsley, see Masterman, op. cit., p. 66; H. De B. Gibbins, op. 
cit., p. 160; Holyoake, Bygones Worth Remembering, London, 1905, I. 
90. Kingsley believed the upper classes to be the natural leaders 
of the people. Hughes and L. Jones were to be later among the most 
important leaders of the working classes in their economic and political 
struggles, Hughes as member of parliament and Jones, an ex-Chartist 
ae as an influential journalist. On Ludlow, see Raven, op. cit., 
p. 62. 


34 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


lieved the great battle of the day was that of the Church, 
the gentleman, and the workman, against the shop-keepers 
and the Manchester School.! In fact, Christian Socialism 
was more closely akin to non-political, voluntary Owenism 
and to Tory-democracy than to Liberalism. 

But Christian Socialism could not afford a platform 
upon which the whole of the working classes could stand, 
because large sections of them were not ready to repudiate 
politics. When Lloyd Jones, a Chartist, was sent to Lan- 
cashire to spread Christian Socialist doctrine, he failed 
completely for this reason and brought upon the move- 
ment the denunciation of the foremost Chartist of the time, 
O’Connor’s successor in leadership, Ernest Jones, who 
henceforth kept up a crusade against it, insisting that politi- 
cal power would gain its objective, which without political 
power was impossible of realization. George Jacob 
Holyoake, a great influence among workingmen for many 
years before and after this period, consistently opposed the 
subordination of political to social reform, and hence op- 
posed this early movement.* Some Chartists welcomed it.® 
As to working-class and Chartist journals, some opposed, 
as for example, the National Instructor, which condemned 
the movement as futile.© Others supported it, as George 
Julian Harney’s Democratic Review,’ the Leicestershire 


*Beer, op. cit., II. 183. 

? Beer, op. cit., I. 122, shows that both Christian Socialism and Tory- 
democracy were a product of Coleridgean philosophy, whose adherents 
became “the spiritual leaders of the new conservatism, imbuing it with 
a sense of social righteousness and love of the people. They are the 
fathers of Tory Democracy and Christian Social reform.” 

“Beer, op. cit., Il. 186; R. G. Gammage, History of the Chartist 
Movement, pp. 382, 3; F. Maurice, Life of F. D. Maurice, II. 157. 

*G. J. Holyoake, Bygones Worth Remembering, I. 96. 

* Walter Cooper became a lecturer for it. See Democratic Review, 
February, 1850. The Christian Socialist, January 18, 1851, records a 
conference at Manchester at which a number of Chartist leaders were 
present. 

° Quoted in Slosson, Decline of the Chartist Movement, p. 176. 

"February, 1850. 


A NEW POLICY 39 


~Movement,! and, more significantly the Operative, the 
organ of the newly formed Amalgamated Society of En- 
-gineers and their organizer, William Newton.? Throughout 
1851-2 the Operative was arguing in favor of the codpera- 
tive as opposed to the competitive industrial principle: it 
furnishes conclusive evidence of the influence of the idea of 
salvation through cooperative workshops upon the engineers 
in these years.* In fact, say the Webbs, various unions vied 
with each other in setting up self-governing workshops.* 
The Operative recounts that the Glassworkers at their na- 
tional conference in May, 1852, discussed cooperation and 
decided to draft plans for undertaking it.° So rapid was 
the increase of codperative societies of all types that, where- 
as in 1850 there were only fifty in existence, two years later 
there were two hundred and fifty, with a membership of 
a hundred and fifty thousand.°® 

Nevertheless, the movement had failed by 1854. Its 
influence had, however, been great. Its leaders were the 


1March 23 and March 30, 1850. The latter number stated that the 
framework knitters were much interested. The movement was regarded 
as a means to secure for labor what it should receive as the sole pro- 
ducer of wealth. 

2“The First Report of the Society for the Promotion of Working 
Men’s Associations. To which is Appended a Report of the Co-opera- 
tive Conference in London . . . 26th and 27th of July, 1852,” in 
the Goldsmiths’ Library, London, lists William Newton as a delegate 
to the conference. “Transactions of the Co-operative League, 1852” 
(in the Goldsmiths’ Library) contains a MS list of members of the 
League, among whom were several Chartists or men who were to be 
influential with the working classes later—William Cunningham, later 
M.P., John Locke, also later M.P., Robert Cooper, Chartist, Robert 
Owen, Louis Blanc, George Dawson of Birmingham, a middle-class 
friend of workingmen, James Hole, and John Holmes, both working- 
men of Leeds of importance later, and William Newton. 

* See a series of articles in February, 1851, also December 13, 1851, 
January 31, 1852, February 27, 1852. An article in the issue of February 
22, 1851, attacked the journal for its policy, saying that it “teems with 
invectives” against competition. 

“Op. cit., p. 226. They say the movement ceased to have practical 
importance among unions after 1852. 

°May 22, 1852. 

®Slosson, op. cit., p. 190. 


36 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


friends of- trade-unions in the days when they had few 
friends; they secured a law to legalize cooperative enter- 
prise’ and worked for improvements in education and sani- 
tation.” Politically, its influence was to offer an obstacle 
to the assimilation of working and middle-class theories 
and policies. So inimical were certain Christian Socialist 
leaders to a Liberal alliance that Ludlow advised in the 
Journal of Association on the eve of the election of 1852 
that workingmen vote for a Tory who set his face against 
extension of the franchise, but who also opposed a reduc- 
tion of wages, rather than for an extreme Radical reformer 
who “buys labour in the cheapest market.”* In the con- 
ferences held with workingmen the debate often turned on 
political action and its advisability. In one such discussion 
Lloyd Jones insisted that the free traders meant freedom 
only for themselves, and E. Vansitart Neele deprecated all 
political action as useless. On the other hand, F. J. Furni- 
val, Washington Wilkes, and W. E. Forster urged coopera- 
tors to make use of their electoral power to further all re- 
forms, especially in the franchise.* 

Such confusion of views characterized the English 
working classes at the middle of the nineteenth century, in 
whatever relationship they may be examined. Let us turn 
now to trade-unions. What was their attitude toward 
economic policy and toward politics? 


“1S and lo Vict ic. 3i. 

*They founded the Working Men’s College in London in 1854. 
Stubbs, op. cit., pp. 168-9, gives an account of Kingsley’s work for sani- 
tary reform. 

* Volume for 1852, p. 170. 

*Tbid., pp. 157, 159, 171. Forster, who later as a member of Glad- 
stone’s cabinet had charge of the Education Bill of 1870, was in 1850 
writing in the Leader on codperation and arguing for the right to labor 
and to the use of the lands of the country. (Quoted in Wm. Pare’s 
Claims of Labour and Capital, London, 1854, Part II, p. 27.) See also 
Journal of Association, 1852, pp. 86 ff., for a conference on the question 
of state intervention. 


A NEW POLICY 37 


Since 1842 they had been increasing in strength and 
had in several cases taken the form of national organiza- 
tions of single trades.1. Their policy came increasingly to 
be to apply themselves to resisting industrial and legal op- 
pression through the building up of strong, permanent 
societies able to oppose employers upon more equal terms 
and with peaceful weapons instead of the strike wherever 
possible. The year 1850 is memorable in the history of 
trade-unionism as witnessing the origin of the amalgamated 
union formed by the combination of several competing 
societies. It elaborated a new method of combining the 
ordinary purposes of collective bargaining with the insur- 
ance features of the many friendly societies with which 
workingmen had become familiar. Such increased mem- 
bership and funds necessitated an improved management. 
Consequently regular salaried officials came to be employed, 
in whose hands the guidance of trade-union affairs came ~ 
more and more to be lodged. The first of these amalgamated 
unions was the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Its 
organizer was William Newton. 

So much for the externals of trade-unionism about 
1850. An investigation into its spirit and attitude toward 
the great social and political problems then engaging work- 
ing-class attention makes it clear that, while eventually 
trade-unions were to abandon all ideas of social revolution, 
even all sense of the solidarity of labor, and become, as the 
Webbs say, associations only for the protection of the vested 
interests of the members, an aristocracy of labor removed 
from the masses and accepting middle-class economics and 
philosophy*—while this was the general course of trade- 
union development after 1850, by that year and for several 
years afterward such development had not gone far enough 


; 


* Webb, op. cit., chapter iv. 
> Webb, op. cit., pp. 204-14. 
* Webb, op. cit., p. 297. 


38 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


to warrant any such description. And it was with the actual — 
situation that politicians of those years had to deal. They 
could only draw inferences from what was apparent and 
shape their tactics accordingly; and there were more symp- — 
toms of dangerous beliefs among trade-unionists then than 
of the reverse. 

Notably, there were the proceedings of the “Metropoli- 
tan Trades’ Delegates” from 1848 to at least 1855. Here 
certainly were promulgated doctrines as much at variance 
with middle-class conceptions as were those of Chartists or 
Socialists. The initial meetings of these delegates seem to 
have been in the late summer of 1848. The Labour League 
(organ of the Association of United Trades) reports in 
the issue of August 12 of that year that a series of meetings 
had recently been held at the Bell Inn, Old Bailey, to consider 
the extent and causes of the present evils of the working 
classes. The delegates published a report on unemployment 
and its attendant evils.‘ A petition to parliament in behalf 
of the reforms they suggested was ignored. Whereupon, they 
decided to form a society of the London and provincial 
trades to organize public opinion to force these reforms 
upon an unwilling parliament. In the spring of 1849 they 
issued their Address to the Trades of Great Britain and 
Ireland, which was published in the Power of the Pence 
and later as a pamphlet, a copy of which is in the Goldsmiths’ 
Library.” It stated that they had been delegated by the 


*This report is summarized in the Labour League. The Britannia, 
March 15, 1851, referring to the petition to parliament at this time, says 
it placed the number of unemployed in London at one half of the total 
fo iad of working men (200,000), and the partially employed at one 
third. 

? A note on the back by the librarian or the collector reads: “A very 
interesting manifesto for a National Trades Union . . . On the 
whole, a more reasonable program than we should find today, or generally 
at that time.” This report was discussed in Harney’s Democratic Review 
by A. A. Walton, one of the most persistent advocates of direct labor 
representation at the time of the passage of the Act of 1867 and after, 
and Labor candidate for Stoke-on-Trent in 1874. 


————— 


A NEW POLICY 39 


trades of London to frame a constitution for a “National 
Organization of Trades for the Industrial, Social, and 
Political Emancipation of Labour.” They therefore sub- 
mitted a program that embraced nationalization of the 
land as the only solution for unemployment; manhood 
suffrage; a state supported system of secular education; ex- 
pansion of the currency; home colonies for the unemployed; 
securing of the benefits of machinery to the whole com- 
munity; restriction on foreign imports that competed with 
home industry; local boards of trade of an equal number 
of employers and workmen to act under the supervision of 
a minister of labor as impartial arbitrators in industrial 
disputes ; the imposition of a graduated property tax in lieu 
of all other taxes. This remarkable program of social re- 
construction ends with an appeal to the trades to “unite 
in one firm and indissoluble bond” to bring about its 
adoption. The address was signed by James O'Leary, 
chairman, and A. E. Delaforce, temporary secretary. 
About a year later the Trades’ Delegates issued a second 
address, dated April 11 and signed by John Segrave, presi- 
dent, and Delaforce as secretary.t The organization had 
evidently by that time taken on a regular form. It had 
been charged with the duty of attempting to ascertain the 
“natural and social” causes that affected labor. The body 
of this address, setting forth the conclusions of the members, 
is an argument against orthodox political economy and unre- 
stricted free trade. The aim of the new system, they say, is 
cheapness, but cheapness comes from reducing wages or from 
cheap machine production, which means unemployment. 
“It has become a matter of the very highest importance 
that every working man... should be made acquainted with 
the delusion that prevails regarding Adam Smith’s writings” 
and those of the other economists, McCulloch, Malthus, and 


* Published in the Champion, Vol. 2, No. 1, and in the Britannia, 
April 20, 1850. 


40 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Mill, which are admittedly “popular, plausible, and loose 
hypotheses.” Then follows a severe arraignment of the new 
middle-class government based upon self-interest, “the 
accumulative principle of social action instead of the distri- 
butive.” But their power can be overthrown if the trades 
will support this organization in a “‘temperate, firm, and con- 
stitutional manner.’’ This address was issued as a pam- 
phlet. The first edition was soon exhausted, and a second 
was published.? 

That the object of attack by this body was the Manchest- 
er School is evident. At the meeting that adopted the above 
address, Richard Oastler, the Tory factory reformer, was a 
speaker. The protectionist party were much interested in 
these proceedings. This is evinced by the fact that one of 
the Tory papers published the address in full, commenting 
that “‘the representatives of labour in this vast city deliberate- 
ly and unanimously proclaim to the world their conviction 
that the so-called Free Trade legislation of recent years is 
not only injurious in practice, but that it is radically false 
in principle.”* It stated that the manifesto was said to ex- 
press the sentiments of nearly twenty thousand individuals. 
In a later number, this same paper stated that the Metropoli- 
tan Trades’ Delegates were giving great assistance to the Na- 
tional Association of United Trades in organizing effective 
resistance to the free-traders.* 

Still a third manifesto was issued in March, 1851.° It 
stated that unemployment in London in the trades depending 
upon home consumption was as great as in 1848, thus prov- 


*A copy is in the Goldsmiths’ Library, entitled, Address of the 
Metropolitan Trades’ Delegates to their Fellow Countrymen on the 
Interests and Present Position of the Labouring Classes of the Empire. 
London, 1850. 

* The Champion, April 20, 1850. 

* The Britannia, April 20, 1850. 

“ Ibid., May 11, 1850. 

° Published in the Britannia, March 15, 1851. 


: A NEW POLICY 41 
‘ing the decreased purchasing power of the people, and that 
| wages among those employed were much lower than in that 
‘year. Thousands were being denied “the right to labour.” 
| In the autumn of 1852, after the election, which turned 
chiefly upon the free-trade issue, this body sent out a “Pro- 
clamation of the Working Classes of Great Britain” with 
the sub-title, “Free Trade vs. Protection.’? Its object was 
stated to be to make known the true sentiments of the 
working classes in view of Villiers’ motion in the House of 
Commons to approve and extend the free-trade policy. It 
professed to present resolutions adopted “at a large meeting 
of the working classes’ convened to consider the subject. 
Those resolutions condemned the political economy that 
taught unlimited competition as destructive of honest deal- 
ing, morality, and the national resources, and advocated a 
policy of protection. 

There is a possibility that active protectionist propaganda 
was being carried on among the London trades which con- 
tributed to such pronouncements.? However that may be, 
it was with workingmen who were issuing such manifestoes 
as these that Hume and Bright had to deal in entering upon 
their task of amalgamating the two great industrial groups 
into one party. Their sense of the difficulty of the under- 
taking must have been equalled only by their realization of 
its necessity. 

Another organized body that preached economic heresy 
was the National Association of United Trades for the 





* Published in The Albion, another protectionist journal, December 1, 


7 At a meeting of the Journeymen Bakers in London in 1850 to 
promote legislation in their behalf, George Frederick Young, president 
of the protectionist association called the National Association for the 
Protection of Industry and Capital, was present and pledged his Associa- 
tion to assist the bakers. Some collector wrote on the back of this pam- 
phlet in the Goldsmiths’ Library: “Protectionist movement taking up the 
sweated trades against the Manchester School.” The pamphlet is en- 
titled, “Meeting of the Journeymen Bakers of the Metropolis. From 
the Morning Herald of July 1, 1850.” 


42 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Protection of Labour. It was formed in 1845 and lasted 
for over fifteen years. Its policy was to be conciliation 
in the economic field and parliamentary agitation for mea- 
sures in the interest of labor. The disasters of the bad years, 
1847-8, struck it a severe blow, but in 1848 it was reorgan- 
ized, started the Labour League as its organ, and continued 
its activities. In the prospectus of this new journal® the 
united action of all classes was urged for the removal of 
the maladies of the time, which were asserted to be social 
in their nature. The trades must become reconciled to a 
slow, persevering attempt to create a favorable public opin- 
ion. ‘The ever growing mass of poverty, ignorance and 
destitution, which results from the present system, must be 
dealt with effectually . . . or it will overthrow the system 
itself.’ The objects of the National Association of Or- 
ganized Trades for the Protection and Employment of 
Labour (the body’s amended title) were stated to be: (1) 
to protect industry from capital by means of mediation, 
arbitration, and financial support; (2) cooperative produc- 
tion to employ surplus labour and men on strike; (3) to 
operate upon public opinion and parliament for such mea- 
sures as the prohibition of sweating, the regulation of hours, 
the employment of surplus labor by the government in useful 
public works, sanitary reform, and the appointment of a 
ministry of labor. 

The next number of the League made a pronouncement 
as to politics: “no re-enactment of the Reform mania of 
thirty-two nor of the Free Trade deception of ’forty-six.” 
Workingmen must work out their own political and social 
salvation and not be the dupes of party.* And again: both 
old parties stood equally condemned in the eyes of the pro- 
ducers of wealth, since neither had the desire to effect re- 

*See Webb, op. cit., pp. 186-196, for an account of this organization. 


* The Labour League, August 5, 1848. 
* August 12, 1848. 


A NEW POLICY 43 


fhedies for social and industrial wrongs. With a certain set 
of political reformers cheapness in government and in goods 
was a cardinal principle; but to them “the sons of toil” 
must not look for aid.* 

If it was difficult for Radicals to find common ground 
with the Metropolitan Trades’ Delegates and the National 
Association, what was the case with such individual trade 
unions as the new Amalgamated Society of Engineers? 
Their denunciation of competition under the strong influence 
of the Christian Socialists breathed in every number of the 
Operative, their journal during 1850, 1851, and 1852.? 
This journal also expressed political opinions which must 
have commanded the general support of the Engineers, or at 
least of their executive council. It believed strongly in the 
efficacy of political power, declaring in one article that the 
people’s miseries were due to the fact that they “are not 
wise unto political salvation.”* It advocated direct labor 
representation as a means to “provide by law that capital 
shall be just to labour,” and to effect great reforms, social 
as well as political.* William Newton, the chief contributor 
to the Operative, stood for Tower Hamlets in the election of 
1852 distinctly as a labor candidate.» The very success of 
the recent amalgamation raised visions of greater things. 
“When every trade is organized, then would be the proper 
time to confederate them in such a bond as would get for 
labour its fair value, and for the labourer his proper consid- 

*March 17, 1849. Testimony before the Committee on the Expedi- 
ency of Boards of Conciliation in 1856 showed that the Association 
then had a membership of five or six thousand. See L. Levi, Annals of 
British Legislation, London, 1857, II. Series A. 

*E.g. as to Christian Socialist influence, just after the lock-out, 
1852, a large delegate meeting was addressed by Neale, Hughes, Ludlow, 
and Jones, and it resolved to start a codperative enterprise. The Oper- 
ative, May 1, 1852. Cf. Webb, op. cit., p. 215, for the codperative 
attempts of the Engineers. 

* February 15, 1851. 


* August 9, 1851. 
° See below, pp. 100 ff. 


44 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


eration in society.” Again,? it declared that the reform 
of 1832 did nothing for the people, but that it, with the re- 
peal of the Corn Laws, had established a complete oligarchy 
of the monied class. Another article proclaimed “the in- 
alienable rights of labour” and prophesied that labour would 
unite to overthrow the whole existing system of competition 
and political exclusion.*? A striking comment upon the 
Manchester peace advocacy was inspired by the incessant 
iteration of a belief in the pacific influence that would flow 
from the impressive display of British economic power in 
the great Industrial Exhibition of 1851. Peace, it declared, 
is much to be desired, “but we doubt that competitive com- 
mercialism is really a peaceful creed.” In fact, “the era of true 
peace must be also an era of justice between man and man, 
as well as between nation and nation, and when we gather 
figs from bramble bushes we shall expect that from competi- 
tive commercialism.” The danger of war is from Russia, 
yet “we have striven fruitlessly to comprehend how barri- 
cades of calicoes, piled never so high, are to preach love and 
brotherhood to the Cossack and the Calmuck, and we have 
been forced to come to the unwelcome conclusion, that men 
are crying ‘Peace, peace!’ where there is no peace.””* 

The Flint Glass Makers, as well as the Engineers, were 
alive to political questions and gave ready ear to economic 
heresies. They are reported as having held a ‘soiree’ in Bir- 
mingham in honor of George Dawson, a prominent middle- 
class Radical of that town, because of his steady liberal 
principles, especially his advocacy of the cause of Hungary. 
The editor of the Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine spoke on 
“the people as the source of political power,” and William 
Newton, the engineer, on “Labour, the legitimate source of 

* October 18, 1851. 
* December 6, 1851. 


* February 28, 1852. 
“1851, pp. 65 ff. 


A NEW POLICY 45 


all wealth.” Scholefield, M. P. for Birmingham, one of the 

staunchest friends of democracy, was present and insisted 
in his address that parliament must legislate upon social 
questions. 

Evidence of the nature of that which has here been pre- 
sented establishes the fact that trade-unionism was not yet, 
ready to enter into the place being prepared for it as the left 
wing of the Liberal party. There was, nevertheless, con- 
siderable indication of tendencies that could be developed 
in that direction, and these have been described in the pages 
of Webb’s History of Trade Unionism. Those tenden- 
cies were toward the adoption of a more pacific trade policy 
by the substitution of conciliation and arbitration wherever 
possible for the strike and a tentative acceptance of competi- 
tive economics in some notable instances. The energy of 
the unions was being more and more directed to the resist- 
ance of legal oppression, suffered through the interpreta- 
tion of the law regarding masters and servants by middle- 
class juries and magistrates. In the better paid trades, 
say the Webbs, men were keenly desirous of learning the 
facts about their industrial and social condition so as to 
base their actions upon a broader understanding of forces. 
Some trades were establishing libraries and classes for 
instruction and putting out trade journals, one of the best 
of which, the Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, was promul- 
gating “a theory of Trade-Unionism, from which Mc- 
Culloch himself would scarcely have dissented.’’? A pro- 
found suspicion of the wisdom of strikes was being voiced 
in many quarters. In fact, after 1845 “the leaders of the 
better educated trades had accepted the economic axiom 
that wages must inevitably depend upon the relation of Sup- 


*, Reported in the Operative, May 15, 1852. 
SP nle2 itt: 
* Webb, op. cit., p. 197. 


46 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ply and Demand in each particular class of labour,”! and 
were consequently emphasizing the necessity of selfishly 
limiting the supply of labor by apprenticeship and emigra- 
tion. This ‘new spirit, by 1850, was dominating the trade 
union world.”” 

This spirit was certainly the most significant influence 
at work so far as future developments were concerned, but 
to the middle-class observer of the years of 1848 to 1854 this 
spirit was harder to discern than the, to him, dangerous 
spirit of the manifestoes of the metropolitan trades, the 
denunciations of competitive economics rife in many quart- 
ers, and the talk still frequent of the “rights of labour” and 
the duties of the government to labor. It would seem, in 
fact, that the conversion of the Engineers to orthodoxy, for 
example, could hardly be said to have been an ascertainable 
fact to the world at large much before the issuance of an 
address by their executive council in 1855 to explain the 
objects and nature of their organization. This address 
expressed to employers the hope that they would cease to 
regard such bodies with disfavor, since they were not 
designed to injure employers’ interests, but rather to promote 
them by elevating the character of workmen.® 

It must be noted also that, whatever may have been their 
formal anouncement of a pacific policy, the unions during 
this period waged industrial wars of the first magnitude, 
carried on by strike and lockout. These contests stimulated 
class solidarity and in some cases induced to political ac- 
tivity on the part of labor that was impressive witness to its 
purpose, if not its power, to influence legislation in its own 
behalf. There were three of these great contests: the Wol- 

* Webb, op. cit., p. 201. 


* Ibid., p. 202. 


* Address of the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Society 
of Engineers to the Fellow Workmen throughout the United Kingdom 
and the British Colonies, London, 1855. 





A NEW POLICY 47 


-verhampton Tinplate Workers’ strike in 1850, the En- 
| gineers’ strike and lockout in 1851, and the great strike of 
the Preston cotton spinners in 1853.1 
The case of the Tinplate Workers possesses more than 
ordinary interest. It was the opening episode in the cam- 
‘paign carried on for a quarter of a century by organized 
labor for the repeal of all restrictive or special legislation 
against itself. A long legal battle developed out of the 
prosecution of the strikers under the law of Masters and 
Servants and the law of conspiracy as applied to offences 
alleged under the Combination of Workmen Act of 1825.? 
| The trials dragged through a year, ending with convictions 
_and thus setting a new and adverse precedent for the in- 
_terpretation of the law. The trade-union world was much 
agitated. The Operative used the inequalities of the law 
relating to Masters and Servants? as a text from which to 
preach the need of political power. “If the people had a 
suffrage—if workmen had the power of making law as well 
as masters—these anomalies would soon be swept away— 
one punishment applicable to all alike for one offense would 
be the motto under which Parliament would legislate be- 
tween employers and employed.’’* But the people have not 
the vote. What then can they do? “Let the results of the 
Tin-plate Workers’ case be waited for and then let the Par- 
liamentary recess be so occupied that the legislature shall not 
be permitted to meet again without such a petition for a 
Social Bill of Rights for the workmen as has never yet been 
presented. Let some great and well-organized society, such 
as the Amalgamated Engineers, take up the movement, and 
invite all other trade unions to join them. Let every man 
*There were also the strikes of the Kidderminster carpet weavers 
(1853) and the “fierce and futile” strike of the Dowlais ironworkers in 
the same year. (Webb, of. cit., p. 224). 
? Webb, op. cit., p. 194, note 1, for this strike. 


* For the operation of this law, see Webb, op. cit., p. 240. 
“July 19, 1851. 


48 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


of the millions who has a master . . . be invited to range 
himself beneath the banners of his tribe, the tribe of the 
servitors, the most numerous on the earth.” After the case 
was ended, the Operative wrote: ““Much as we may dread the 
excitement, the turmoil, the strife of agitation, we must agi- 
tate in earnest . . . and it must be a combined, not a piece- 
meal agitation. It must ring through all the land wherever 
a toiler is to be found. If the struggle must come we must 
raise the war-cry of a whole class.”! In the next issue 
the plan was elaborated. The working classes must unite 
for their own emancipation, but should agitate for one thing 
at atime. The first object should be the amendment of the 
Master and Servant law. This would arouse the solidarity 
which was a prime requisite for the larger movement. “As 
the war cry of a class, it is not to be surpassed.” Our peti- 
tion would be laid upon the table, but “a basis for a great 
organization would be attained, and, in short, a beginning 
would be made toward that emancipation of labour, which 
by some means must come sooner or later.”* Plans were 
then outlined for an agitation similar to the agitations for 
Catholic Emancipation and repeal of the Corn Laws. 

In the meantime, the National Association of Organized 
Trades was acting. The report? of their central committee 
upon their proceedings throughout the greater part of the 
years 1851-3 foreshadows in a remarkable way the proceed- 
dings of the Junta for similar legislation fifteen years later. 
It was this body that appealed the case to a higher court,* 


* October 11, 1851. 

* The Operative, October 18, 1851. 

* Report of the Central Committee of the United Trades on the 
Proceedings connected with the “Combination of Workmen Bill” in 
the Parliamentary Session, 1853. It was addressed to members of the 
Association and to the trades generally in the belief that it might be of 
use in the future in a similar movement. It is in the Goldsmiths’ Library. 

“Compare the account in the Bookbinders’ Trade Circular for 
November, 1853, in which the statement is made that a committee of 
London trades collected the money for this appeal and conducted it, 


A NEW POLICY | 49 


and when the verdict of conviction was confirmed, they 
decided to demand of parliament a declaratory act to remove 
the possibility of such a construction being placed upon cer- 
tain clauses of the Combination of Workmen Act as to 
render prosecutions for conspiracy possible and also an 
amendment of the law as to Masters and Servants. Henry 
Drummond, T. S. Duncombe, president of the Association, 
and Lord Goderich, a Christian Socialist and a democrat, 
took charge of the measure. The Committee instituted 
“quiet but persevering” agitation among the metropolitan 
and provincial trades by means of circulars and deputations. 
Members of the Committee visited at least two hundred 
organizations. They also effected a ‘‘vigorous canvass’’ of 
members of parliament. A memorial was presented to 
Derby’s government, and, the report goes on to say, had it 
remained in power there would have been no opposition. 
They then took the matter up with Aberdeen’s government, 
but Palmerston, home secretary, was hostile to the bill on 
the ground that the law was sufficiently liberal and would 
become dangerous if enlarged. The bill was beaten by a 
vote of seventy to fifty-seven. The Report analyzes the vote, 
showing thirty-six Conservatives, thirteen Radicals, and 
eight Whigs for the measure and eight Conservatives, fif- 
teen Radicals, and forty-seven Whigs against it. The bill 
was brought up again, however, and the Committee suc- 
ceeded in securing the aid of Cobden, Milner Gibson, Hume, 
and several Radicals, with which assistance it passed the 
House of Commons, only to be thrown out by the Lords.* 


and that the Association did not contribute a farthing to it. Mr. and 
Mrs. Webb accept this as the true version of the matter. 

*For the first debate on the bill in parliament see Hansard, 3d. 
series, CX XV. 646-7, 1427-8. For later stages of the bill, ibid., CK XVI. 
ea XOX VI. 1017s CXONVT -247)* KC XCXPXS 1322 fi. In’ the 
Lords, Lord Kinnaird sponsored the bill, but he finally withdrew it, 
“seeing the temper of the House.” 


50 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


This report was discussed by the Bookbinders’ Trade 
Circular,| which was the most middle-class in its point 
of view. of all the trade journals. It considered that the 
failure of the Committee was not due to any lack of agitat- 
ing ability. “We doubt whether it was ever excelled in any 
matter of equal magnitude.” Rather it was the result of 
a lack of sufficient care in basing the arguments for the bill 
upon exact facts. The harsh criticism of the Circular 
against this body now and later? was due in large part, 
beyond doubt, to its decided antagonism to all political 
action. Not more legislation but greater intelligence on 
the part of workingmen to keep them out of the clutches of 
the law was the chief need, it believed.* The bill was 
opposed by such manufacturers’ journals as the Woollen, 
Worsted and Cotton Journal* and the Economist. 

This incident in trade-union history has been considered 
somewhat at length because it foreshadowed in a striking 
way the political tactics to be adopted by trade-unionists 
for the next twenty-five years; skillful parliamentary agita- 
tion for legislation, the marshalling of the trades in support, 
the perception on the part of some that political power in 
the possession of the people was a necessary prerequisite 
to success, and the cautious fear on the part of others of 
even this limited amount of agitation. Also, on the other 
hand, it reveals the fears of the employing class of any mea- 

* November, 1852. 

* February, 1857. It opposed allowing the Association to handle 
important affairs of workingmen, such as watching bills in parliament. 

* January, 1854. As to the future of the National Association of 
United Trades, in addition to the information concerning it in Webbs’ 
History of Trade Unionism, pp. 186-195, there is an item in Reynolds’s 
Newspaper of November 3, 186 1G Fleming, its president, and | 
Winters and Humphreys, secretaries, with Charles Sturgeon, standing 
counsel, waited upon the new Lord Chancellor to congratulate him upon 
his appointment and to thank him for his constant readiness to assist 
them in industrial legislation. The Chancellor, in reply, spoke of fre- 
quent communications with the Association, which had impressed him 


with its intelligence and moderation. 
“June, 1853. This also quotes from the Economist in like vein. 


A NEW POLICY 51 


sure designed to strengthen combinations of workmen. The 
deputation from the employers to Sir George Grey, the home 
secretary, showed their willingness to bring pressure to bear 
upon the government in order to secure coercive or legisla- 
tive action against unions.‘ Furthermore, it must be 
apparent that such vigorous activity as was here displayed 
by the trades inevitably became a factor in the political ad- 
justment of classes then in process of development. 
Another effective piece of parliamentary agitation oc- 
curred two years later, which adds to the sum of proof that 
workingmen were not politically inert. It was reported 
to the Metropolitan Trades Committee in session in 1855 
that a bill affecting the friendly societies had been intro- 
duced into parliament, which would endanger the status of 
trade-unions. At once a sub-committee was appointed to 
look after the matter. It waited upon members of parlia- 
ment, watched the proceedings in Committee, had remedial 
clauses inserted, and had a petition relating to the bill signed 
on behalf of unions representing nearly forty thousand 
members. Eighty-seven societies contributed to the fund to 
carry on the agitation, and the Committee included William 
Allan, chairman, and William Newton. The result was to 
give trade societies what was considered to be legal recogni- 
tion for the first time, by permitting them to register under 
this act. 

The Bookbinders had had one of their officers upon the 
committee, and, at the happy conclusion of its labors, their 
Circular pointed a moral for workingmen by declaring that 
this case proved they had the power by moral suasion to 
take part in legislation and that such methods would serve 
to promote harmony between the upper and working classes. 
It is not difficult to discern in this a jibe at agitators for 
political reform. 


1 Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, April, 1853. 
27Full account in Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, December, 1855. 
See also Webb, op. cit., p. 243, note. 


52 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Simultaneously with the agitation with reference to the 
Master and Servant Act came the great Engineers’ strike 
and lockout, a result of the formation of the Amalgamated 
Society.1 The masters answered the strike of the men 
against piece work and overtime by a lockout covering Lan- 
cashire and London and the organization of a Central As- 
sociation of Employers of Operative Engineers in Decem- 
ber, 1851. A pamphlet issued by their Executive Com- 
mittee justified the lockout as necessary “to arrest the en- 
croachments of irresponsible dictation,” for it was better 
that workmen suffer now “than linger under a permanent 
oppression.”* Then, much underscored: “All we want 
is to be let alone. With less than that we shall not be sat- 
isfied. Until we accomplish that we shall not reopen our 
establishments.” Arbitrators have offered their services, 
but “we alone are the competent judges of our own busi- 
nesses.” Collective bargaining was repudiated thus: “Arti- 
sans and their employers are respectively individuals—each 
legally capable of consent—each severally entitled to con- 
tract.” The new Amalgamated Society foreboded “a war 
of classes’”’ and was promulgating “new and dangerous 
principles of social and political economy.” 

The conflict developed into a war on trade-unionism it- 
self through the masters’ demand that the men sign a re- 
pudiation of the union before being taken back into em- 
ployment. Meetings were held all over Lancashire and 
Yorkshire to resist; even non-society men joined in.* In 
Manchester, in the Free Trade Hall, the greatest indoor 
meeting ever held by the working classes up to that time took 
place in February, 1852. William Newton was the chief 
speaker, and, according to the Manchester Guardian, the 


* Webb, op. cit., pp. 214 ff. 

7“Representation of the Case of the Executive Committee of the 
Central Association of Employers of Operative Engineers,” London, 
1852. Signed by Sidney Smith, Secretary. 

*The Operative, February 14, 1852. 


A NEW POLICY 53 


whole meeting rose en masse when he finished his ad- 
dress.1 Newton was the foremost labor leader at that 
time in looking to bigger things than merely an isolated 
victory here and there. He had the vision of a great labor 
party composed of the whole of the working classes of the 
country, disciplined and morally strong. But in his view, 
this labor organization, instead of avoiding political action, 
should seek it and use it. Here he was close to labor leaders 
of the next generation. In this speech at Manchester he 
appealed to the moral dignity of the men and strove to im- 
press them with the thought that they were fighting the 
battle of oppressed artisans everywhere and were helping to 
settle the great question of capital and labor. Later, in the 
- Operative, he exulted in the contest as a means of develop- 
_ing the power of the working classes. 

Great solidarity was developed among the working 
classes in this struggle. Other trades contributed funds to 
the amount of five thousand pounds.? The case won much 
publicity. Christian Socialists wrote and worked for the 
men. They sponsored great meetings to launch cooperative 
enterprises on a national scale as a means to defeat capital. 
Newton hoped to see these efforts result in a mighty 
power “capable of changing the face of the social world.’ 
He at that moment was announcing himself as a candidate 
in the interest of labor for the metropolitan constituency 
of Tower Hamlets. There can be no doubt that his candi- 
dacy was a phase of the profound agitation of organized 
labor that accompanied the great industrial conflict. 

The strike ended after fifteen months in a defeat for the 
men. An indication of the apprehension it aroused, even 
among the most friendly of the middle classes, is afforded by 


*Quoted in the Operative, February 28, 1852, which gives a full 
account of the meeting. 


? Webb, of. cit., p. 215; also the Operative, March 6, 1852. 
* Operative, March 27, 1852. 


54 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


a pamphlet by Samuel Fielden, then working to prevent the 
repeal of the Ten Hours Act. “A mere glance at what must 
follow upon such a state of things is enough to strike one 
with terror. . . . From this source every system and theory 
inimical to the peace and order of society will derive the 
most effective support.”* 

Scarcely had this industrial war been concluded, when 
another equally disturbing began to stir the social waters to 
their depths. This was the lock-out of the Preston cotton- 
spinners, which lasted seven months and involved thirty 
thousand operatives in Preston and came to involve as many 
more in other towns of Lancashire.2 The manufacturers 
of Lancashire entered into an agreement to maintain the con- 
test until victory should be complete—a “great cotton-lord 
conspiracy.”* The question at stake was not one of wages, 
the ostensible one, but of mastery. This fact is clear from 
the report of the committee of the Master Spinners and 
Manufacturers’ Association appointed to handle their de- 
fence fund: “To say that Capital is—must—ought to— 
and shall be the master of Labour, is but to say that 
civilization shall rule barbarism—foresight, industry—and 
that frugality shall reign over extravagance, and idleness 
and waste. . . . It is a law of Providence that the leaders of 
mankind shall consist of those who are best fitted to the 
task.”” As to trade-unions, they had reached a point which 
demanded “‘peremptory and effectual’ resistance. Such 
sentiments as these were echoed, more mildly, in other manu- 


*The Turn-out by the Master Mechanics. A letter by Samuel 
Fielden, Esq. Addressed to the Editor of the Times, Bolton, 1852. 

° A good account from the workers’ point of view is in the Beacon, 
A Journal of Politics and Literature, October and November, 1853, 
and January, 1854. 


* The Beacon, November 16, 1853, and Britannia, January 7, 1854. 


* Report of the Committee Appointed for the Receipt and Apportion- 
ment of the Master Spinners’ and Manufacturers’ Defence Fund. Man- 
chester, 1854. 


A NEW POLICY 55 





facturing quarters.‘ The masters resorted to the usual de- 
vice of using the local magistracy to fight their battle, while 
influencing the Poor Law Guardians to refuse relief to the 
starving men. The Economist applauded the latter for thus 
refusing to fight the workingmen’s battle with the public 
_money.” 

Feeling ran high among the men. At monster meetings 
‘labor hymns were sung; the walls were placarded with bills 
proclaiming “Labour is the Source of All Wealth,” and 
with poems beginning, “The Masters will have war! ah, war 
mio the knife! Well then... .’? A feeling of solidarity 
was stimulated all over the country. Funds poured in to aid 
the operatives. The Metropolitan Trades Delegates gave 
their active assistance. That all sorts of vague revolu- 
| tionary ideas and projects were connected with this great 
class war is shown by the movement for a Labor Parlia- 
ment that developed in connection with it. This was, as 
West described it, one of the innumerable anticipations of 
a general federation of trade-unions.® Indeed, it was 
similar to the one that had been projected in the course of 
the Engineers’ strike of a year before. The promoters of 
this one, however, were apparently Chartists, especially 
Ernest Jones, the uncompromising advocate of social re- 
volution and class war. The Labor Parliament of forty 
delegates chosen at public meetings in London, Birmingham, 
Manchester, Nottingham, etc., met in March, 1854. Karl 
Marx and Louis Blanc were invited, but declined.* It was 





*See an article on “The Folly of Strikes” in the Woollen, Worsted 
and Cotton Journal, a Monthly Magazine of Industry, November, 1853. 


* George Howell, Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour 
Leaders, N. Y., 1902, p. 108; also the Beacon, November 30, 1853. 


* Levi, Annals of British Legislation, II. Series A, p. 16 n. Evidence 
before the Committee on Councils of Conciliation. London, 1857. Also 
English Republic for 1854, p. 224. 


* Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, December, 1855. 
* West, History of Chartism, p. 271. 
®° Ibid., p. 271. 


56 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


decided to organize a ““Mass Movement” for the purpose of 
instituting a gigantic coOperative scheme in manufactures 
and land as a means to oppose capitalism and prevent un- 
employment and also for the purpose of demanding a long 
program of labor legislation.1_ The plans included the col- 
lection of five million pounds a year by a levy on wages, to 
be used to purchase land, to support men on strike, and to 
promote codperative efforts. An executive council was ap- 
pointed. The Preston strike, however, ended within a month 
after the launching of the project, and it collapsed, just as 
the similar one that grew out of the Engineers’ strike had 
done. 

Such impractical and necessarily abortive schemes pos- 
sess a considerable amount of significance for the student 
of working-class thought in this transitional period, who is 
seeking to determine the intellectual and psychological back- 
ground of the political developments of the time. Lack of 
unanimity in analysis of the elements of their problems, the 
consciousness of their social nature and the need of social 
remedies, a realization of the necessity of class action verg- 
ing upon a peaceably conducted class war with revolutionary 
social aims—these characteristics undoubtedly still clung to 
the thinking of workingmen. Nor had even the trade- 
unions yet wholly emancipated themselves from such vague 
and visionary conceptions. The very months in which the 
Preston strike was evoking an unmistakable expression of 
such views were the months in which the question of parlia- 
mentary reform was being considered by the Aberdeen 
cabinet. Among the arguments used freely against all re- 
form at that time were this strike and the opinions it elicited. 
John Bright’s efforts to promote an agitation for the bill 

* For an account of this project, see Gammage, History of the Chart- 
ist Movement, pp. 394, 5; also West, of. cit., p. 271; the English Repub- 
lic for 1854, p. 199; the "Britannia, November 26, 1853; and the Provi- 


dent Times, Macce 8, 1854, which contains the full program of the 
Parliament. 


A NEW POLICY 57 


were rendered almost hopeless by the aversion of the mid- 
dle classes to the idea of enfranchising workingmen capable 
of enunciating such dangerous theories and by the suspicion 
of middle-class political sincerity aroused in the minds of 
the working classes by the relentless industrial conflicts. A 
_ consciousness upon both sides of industrial antagonism ap- 
peared to give the aspect of a hollow pretense to any at- 
‘tempted political alliance. And so, early in 1854, the meager 
reform bill of the government, which had confessedly 
_ aroused no enthusiasm anywhere, was submerged in the ris- 
ing tide of war sentiment, and the question of enfranchising 
the working classes was dropped from the program of polit- 
ical possibilities for several years to come. 

If the working classes suspected the motives of the middle 
classes, however, and disdained this bill which the govern- 
ment brought forth, nevertheless the Preston strike was in- 
terpreted by many of them as additional proof that the work- 
ing classes must gain political power. The Beacon, for ex- 
ample, gave expression to this argument.’ In one number it 
declared there was no hope for labor until it should become 
politically as well as industrially independent of employers. 
The House of Commons must be made to represent labor as 
well as capital.2 Linton’s English Republic said: The 
Preston strike is a war, and a war forever. Victory would 
mean only a breathing spell. ‘Political power alone can 
help the people.”? So also thought a Chartist and Secu- 
larist journal published in democratic Newcastle-upon- 
Tyne ;* so also the radical Sunday Times, and the Weekly 
Times. Reynolds's Newspaper, the extremist weekly that 
was rapidly becoming the most widely read paper among the 











*November 9, 1853. It argued also that the vote was a “right 
appertaining to every citizen in virtue of his manhood.” 


? October 26, 1853. 
* For 1854, p. 158. 
“The Northern Tribune, 1854, p. 115. 


58 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


working classes, denounced the government as the instru- 
ment of capitalists, from which danger the people could 
save themselves only by the acquisition of political power.* 
To all of these arguments, the middle classes retorted with 
an interminable use of the strike as a text from which to 
exhort workingmen to learn political economy.? The 
Times argued from it the vast danger in enfranchising such 
a totally ignorant class,? and the Economist declared that 
such proceedings had retarded the cause of reform for half 
a century.* 

If an understanding is to be gained of all the factors en- 
tering into this first phase of that particular political develop- 
ment which has been herein defined as an attempted entente 
between the two great industrial groups in English society, 
still another question, in addition to expressions of economic 
and social theories and industrial conflicts in the nature of 
strikes and lockouts, must be given consideration. This is 
the question of factory legislation. It was a question of 
prime concern to workingmen and entered largely into their 
estimates of political friendships and enmities. 

The epoch-making act of 1847, establishing a ten-hour 
day for women and young persons in textile factories, had 
been received as an inestimable boon by the operatives. The 
progress of the measures had been jealously watched, and 


* All of these quoted in the Beacon, November 9, 1853. 

?A good example is a pamphlet entitled: The Strike, A Letter to 
the Working Classes on their present Position and Movement, by a 
Lancashire Manufacturer (J. A. Nicholls, F. R. A. S.), London, 1853; 
also another by the same author in the same vein written in 1856. The 
author, a mill owner, preached the power, sacredness, and beneficence 
of unfettered capital to workingmen, telling them they should bless 
it as the source of life. Strikes and trade unions were anathema. (In 
vol. of pamphlets on Capital and Labor in Manchester Free Reference 
Library). Another pamphlet dealing with the question is by J. Frearson, 
The relative rights and interests of the employer and the employed dis- 
cussed; and a system proposed by which the conflicting interests of all 
classes of society may be reconciled. London, 1855. 

* Quoted in the Beacon, November 9, 1853. 

*Ibid., November 23, 1853. 


A NEW POLICY bi, 


it was seen that Peel’s Tory government had allied with the 
hostile manufacturers in opposition, and that Russell, Pal- 
merston, and Sir George Grey, Whigs, had supported the 
bill? It was finally passed by Russell’s government. 
Bright and the Manchester School had opposed it, on the 
ground explained by Bright later when he said, “I was op- 
posed to all legislation restricting adults, men or women.... 
I could not, therefore, support Bills which directly inter- 
fered with and restricted the working hours of women, and 
which thus were intended to limit the working hours of 
men.”’? 

The manufacturers succeeded to a large extent in nul- 
lifying the law by inventing the relay system. Agitation 
began at once to amend the law to render this impossible. 
The operatives became convinced that the employers were 
determined to alter the law so as practically to abolish al- 
together the newly-won ten-hour day. Excitement in the 
factory districts became intense, and the operatives renewed 
their former organization under the title, the Association 
for the Protection of the Ten Hour Act.? By April, 1850, 
so intense had feeling become that a Chartist paper in Man- 
chester declared that English society was held together only 
by the last links and that the fate of the Ten Hour Act 
would determine whether they were to hold.* Charges of 
treason were widely and seriously made against Lord Ashley 
and others who had formerly supported the measure.°® 


*Hodder, Life and Works of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury, 
London, 1888, II. 30, 81, 82, 137. 

7H. J. Leach, The Public Letters of the Right Honourable John 
Bright, London, 1895, p. 253. 

*For the activities of the renewed organization see the Champion 
a What is True and Right and for the Good of All, December 15, 
9, 1849. 

“The Champion of What ts True and Right and for the Good of 
All, ed. J. R. Stephens, April 20, 1850. 

“See the Champion, January 19, April 13, and March 16, 1850. 
John Fielden, the organizer of the former agitation in the factory 
districts, had just died, and many workers believed this to be the signal 


60 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


In the House the debate upon Ashley’s proposed declaratory 
act showed Bright, Milner Gibson, and the Peelite, Sir 
James Graham, in determined opposition not only to the new 
measure but to the original one as well, evidently hoping 
to render it ineffective. On the other hand, Lord John 
Manners and Disraeli were leading the Young England 
group in warm support.t| The Government soon came 
forward with their own bill to be substituted for the mea- 
sure of 1847, increasing the number of hours per week by 
two, but making relays impossible.2 Hume, at that very 
moment the most active middle-class leader in the Associa- 
tion which had for its object the political amalgamation of 
working and middle classes,? straightway denounced the 
government as “irresolute and weak” in thus assenting to 
a bill interfering between masters and men.* When the 
government compromise was passed, Bright acted as teller 
for the opposition and was supported by such political 
Radicals as Lawrence Heyworth, Trelawney, and C. Vil- 
liers.® 

When a last effort was made to amend the measure still 
further in harmony with the views of the operatives, by ex- 
tending it to children, Bright charged that the aim was to 
force the stoppage of all machinery and thus of adult male 
labor at six p.m. Trelawney lamented the harmful doc- 
trines advocated by the supporters of such a measure, yet 
did not believe that the more sensible workingmen accepted 
them, but rather felt ‘confidence in those who were ready 
to extend to them the suffrage, and who had taught them a 


for the desertion of others. Samuel Fielden, son of John, took the 
lead in the new agitation. Ashley took the accusations against him 
very seriously. 

* Hansard, 3rd series, CIX. 883 ff. Bright’s speech is given on pp. 
918 ff.; Manners’ on p. 923, and Graham’s on pp. 927 ff. 

? Hansard, CX. 1132 ff. 

® See below, ch. iv. 

* Hansard, CX. 1134-5. 

* Ibid., CXI. 845. The vote was forty-five to two hundred forty-six. 
Cobden did not vote. 


A NEW POLICY 61 






totally different doctrine.”1 Then he asked the question: 
if workingmen are in favor of this measure, as you say they 
are, will you extend to them the suffrage? Huis argument 
furnishes an excellent comment upon the interrelation of 
economics and politics. The vote upon this amendment 
_ showed the ayes to be almost all Conservatives, with the ex- 
ception of such trusted friends of the working classes as 
Sharman Crawford, W. J. Fox, the Unitarian minister, 
| Lord Robert Grosvenor, Muntz of Birmingham, Lord Dud- 
(ley Stuart, Col. T. P. Thompson, and Sir Joshua 
_ Walmsley.? 








Other amendments of like tenor came on. In the dis- 
cussion of one of them Disraeli declared the bill ought to 
fix the hours of all labor,? while Hume asserted that the 
government should scrap all legislation whatever of the na- 
ture of this act because such interference was driving capi- 
tal from the country.* Shaftesbury wrote later in his diary 

that in this and similar measures he was constantly sup- 
: ported by a few sincere Whigs and Conservatives and by 
the Tories who were angry with Peel. He was constantly 
opposed by Gladstone and Lord Brougham, by Bright, 
“ever my most malignant opponent,’ and by Cobden, who 
was “bitterly hostile.’”’® 

The question of factory legislation thus brings out more 
clearly than any other, except perhaps that of trade-union- 
ism, the deep-seated antagonism of the time and reveals the 
almost insuperable difficulties in the way of sincere co- 





* Hansard, CXI. 849, for Bright’s statement, and pp. 853-4, for 
Trelawney’s. 

2 Tbid., CXI. 855. For further debates on amendments see ibid., 
pp. 1234-1371, CXII, 125 ff. and 1348 ff. In 1853 Palmerston as home 
secretary completed the act by extending it to children, thus confining 
all labor in the mills between the hours of six and six. See Hodder, 
op. cit., Il. 208, and Hansard, CXXVIII. 1251 ff. 

® Hansard, CXI. 1282 ff. 

“Tbid., CXII. 129. 

* Hodder, op. cit., II. 209-10. 


62 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


operation between the working classes and any other. The 
element in the Liberal party ready to listen to their de- 
mands for political recognition were their unflinching in- 
dustrial opponents, and industrial conflict inevitably dimin- 
ished their democratic zeal; while those Whigs and Con- 
servatives who could see the justice of governmental in- 
terference on the side of the weaker in the industrial world 
had little sympathy for democracy. Economic interests and 
political principles cut athwart each other in a manner most 
disastrous to any strong political cohesion. 

That principle was not always the determinant of at- 
titude toward factory and similar legislation, but that in- 
terests alone often were, is manifested in connection with 
the Mines Bill to provide for compulsory inspection and an 
alteration in the method of payment of wages introduced 
at the instance of the colliers by T. S. Duncombe, president 
of the National Association of United Trades for the Pro- 
tection of Industry. Practically all the members from the 
mining sections of the country opposed the measure. But 
Hume, who had lead in opposing the Ten Hour Act, sec- 
onded Duncombe’s motion. The question arises whether 
the fact that the Ten Hour Act was an interference with 
manufacturers and the Mines Bill with landed proprietors 
chiefly influenced his attitude toward the two measures. 
Bright consistently opposed both. During the next year, 
when the question was before the Lords, the landed pro- 
prietors, so ready to vote with labor against Manchester, 
very generally saw danger in a measure which aimed to in- 
terfere with the operation of the mines. The Earl of Lons- 
dale considered it would be a great annoyance to coal owners. 
The Earl of Malmesbury, while lamenting the loss of life 
in mines, yet considered it “necessary to have some regard 
to the interests of the proprietors.”? A Mines Bill did, 


* Hansard, CVI. 1335 ff. 
? Ibid., CX. 1162. 


A NEW POLICY 63 


however, pass the Lords. When it came up in the House 
of Commons Hume supported it. But now Disraeli, who 
at that very moment was marshalling Young England be- 
hind the Ten-Hour Act on the ground of principle, pro- 
tested against “this interposition between capital and 
labour,” explaining that coal owners had represented to 
him that such interference with their property would be 
seriously injurious. 

Another measure in the interest of the working classes 
in 1853 occasioned a debate that took a decidedly political 
turn; namely, a bill to enforce the law against truck, which 
was designed to protect the poor stockingers of Leicester and 
Nottingham from being defrauded of the greater part of 
their earnings through deductions for frame-rent.t Most 
of the borough members from the sections involved, repres- 
enting the employing interests, opposed the measure; the 
county members favored it. Hume denounced the advocates 
of the bill as the greatest enemies of the working classes, 
because they were attempting to do for them by legislation 
that which legislation could not do and were using harsh 
language about employers, thus causing workingmen to con- 
sider themselves tyrannically used. The debate was then 
brought into direct touch with the political negotiations go- 
ing on outside of parliament through the medium of the As- 
sociation that was attempting to combine the middle and 
working classes for political agitation, in an argument which 
Sir Joshua Walmsley, member for Leicester, addressed to 
Hume. Walmsley, a Chartist in sympathy, was president of 
this new Association, and Hume was an active leader in it. 
Walmsley now took occasion to contrast the good inten- 
tions of Hume toward the working classes politically with 
his opposition to their interests in the matter of frame- 
rents. G. F. Muntz, one of the most constant democrats and 


1For the debate see Hansard, CXXVI. 1079-1117. 


64 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


a friend of the Chartists, could see no possible good in the 
proposed measure; while Heyworth, of Derby, another ex- 
tremist in matters purely political, summed up the Man- 
chester position by declaring that the only possible way to 
help the wretched frame-work knitters was for parliament to 
“go on in the glorious course in which they have made such 
progress; they must make trade free, and remit indirect 
taxation.”! It is easy to imagine the sympathetic response 
to such sentiments among starving weavers, from whom 
employers were collecting several hundred per cent. profit 
upon their frames in the form of rent deducted from the 
already miserable wages. Lord John Manners took the 
opportunity in the course of this debate to assert anew the 
Tory-democratic sympathy of country gentlemen with the 
poor in the industrial centers.2, The bill was lost on divi- 
sion by a vote of one hundred and twenty-five to one 
hundred and eighty-six. 

If economic ignorance fostered such attempts at legis- 
lation as those above described, socialism itself was the 
parent of the schemes projected by Lord Robert Grosvenor 
for the protection of the oppressed London bakers. In 
1849 and again in 1850 he brought up the question in the 
House of Commons.* Upon the latter occasion Bright, 
after having read from the pages of the Bakers’ Gazette and 
General Trades’ Advocate an article on “Wages and La- 
bour,” declared that nothing in the schemes of Owen or the 
Socialists of France was more communistic than the senti- 
ments of that article.* Cobden in a previous debate had 
warned the House that the bill contained an entirely new 


* Hansard CXX-VI. 1116. 


?See discussion in Woollen, Worsted and Cotton Journal, June, 
1853, from manufacturers’ standpoint. It quoted from one speaker as 
to the identity of the political economy of the Tory country gentlemen 
and the rabble of the great towns. 

* Hansard, CVII. 481 ff.; CX. 1245 ff. 

“ Hansard, CX. 1248. 


A- NEW POLICY 65 


and dangerous principle, which other trades would not fail 
to clamor for if enacted into law in this case; let them take 
warning by the example of France and the failure of the 
schemes of Louis Blanc.t At a working-class meeting 
in Brighton, in support of the cause of the bakers, the speak- 
ers devoted much effort to a denunciation of Manchesterian 
and Malthusian doctrines, and one speaker cited Cobden’s 
opposition to this measure as a proof that his pretended 
friendship for the working class was “thin air.’”* 

It was in the midst of circumstances such at these, 
breeding as they did social antagonism of the sharpest na- 
ture, that, in the political world, certain leaders of both 
industrial classes were endeavoring to effect a working 
entente. To these endeavors it will soon be well to turn for 
a closer examination. There were, however, still other 
factors in the social and political complexity characterizing 
this period of transition which must be at least cursorily 
examined because of their contribution to the confusion of 
thought and purpose which hampered the attempted political 
alliance from the first. 

First, there were the still vital fragments of the Chartist 
movement, which for several years played a larger part in 
the working-class world and hence in the middle-class atti- 
tude toward it than is sometimes understood. Chartism 
had not been extinguished by 1850; it had merely broken 
into numerous sects. This disintegration of the move- 
ment destroyed its immediate menace in the eyes of the 
upper classes, but the continued adherence of large numbers 


*Tbid., CVII. 488 f€. 

?From an account in the Champion of What is True and Right and 
for the Good of All, May 5, 1850. For the division on the bill, see 
Hansard, CX. 1249. The vote was forty-four to ninety-four. On the 
peeon of the protectionist party with this matter see note 2, p. 41 
above. 

*The best account of these bodies is in West, A History of the 
Chartist Movement, chap. v. See also Slosson, The Decline of the 
Chartist Movement and Hovell, The Chartist Movement. 


66 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


of workingmen to, the various Chartist interpretations con- 
tributed to the perpetuation of a schism between classes. 
It is not necessary here to enter into any extended discussion 
of these sects and their programs. But it is necessary to 
scrutinize them somewhat in the light of their bearing upon 
the general political situation. 

The central organization continued to be the National 
Charter Association.t It had so dwindled by 1851 that 
W. J. Linton could write of it in his journal that all that 
remained was “a handful of men clinging to a forlorn hope 

. some few believers in the impossible, waiting for 
Opportunity to come back,’’? Its shrinkage was the result, 
in a measure, of the beginning of a decline in the Chartist 
faith, but it was due in a larger degree to the drawing off of 
Chartists into other competing bodies, themselves partaking 
of some of the nature of Chartism. Several new and vigor- 
ous minds were recruited to the cause in this later period. 
The programs enunciated were many and various, some 
crude and some remarkably penetrating, but the sum total 
of them reveals much intellectual vitality. They could not, 
however, achieve for long the numerical support which 
would lift them out of the position of vain theorizing. The 
reasons. for this are obvious from the explanations given in 
earlier pages of this discussion. Distress was mitigated, 
and factory legislation was to a certain extent disintegrating 
the lack of confidence in upper-class government. Belief in 
codperation, whether Christian Socialist or other, “went 
through the ranks of Chartism and decimated them.”® 
And finally the middle-class overtures for an alliance on 


* First formed in 1840. 
*The English Republic. An article on the History of Chartism, 
pp. 78 ff. 


° Freethinkers’ Magazine, December 1, 1850. An article on the 
Reasons for Disunion in the Ranks of Democracy. 


A NEW POLICY 67 


middle-class grounds possessed an ever stronger appeal for 
‘certain groups of workingmen. 

| This last was, in fact, the wedge that split the National 
Charter Association in 1850 and brought into leadership a 
‘rival to O’Connor in the person of Ernest Jones. At the 
-end of a prison term, imposed for alleged seditious utter- 
ances in the Chartist agitation in 1848, Jones placed himself 
at the head of the opposition to the middle-class movement 
_with which O’Connor had by that time become identified.* 
Jones proclaimed in unmodified form the gospel of class war 
for the achievement of class social benefits and carried the 
National Charter Association over to a sweeping social pro- 
gram. He denounced attempts to combine with the 
_ middle classes as an effort to hand over the Chartists to the 
_Manchester School. 

Between 1848 and 1850 several Chartist groups were 
organized for the avowed purpose, among others, of seek- 
ing the aid of the middle classes. The People’s League, 
formed by William Lovett in May, 1848, sought to base 
this union upon a program of political democracy and social 
-reform. The most unusual of its demands was for the re- 
peal of all indirect taxes and the imposition of a graduated 
property tax, an item which here, according to J. H. 
Rose,*? found its first embodiment in a democratic program. 
Edward Miall and a few other middle-class leaders gave 
their adhesion to the project, but Cobden and Hume frankly 
said that O’Connor had made the very name of Chartist 








*See below, p. 87. 

*For this see West, The Chartist Movement, pp. 263-5. Upon this 
program West comments: “Those men, in those unpromising conditions, 
agreed upon a programme which future generations of reformers spent 
much time, not in reshaping, on in laboriously rediscovering.” See also 
Gammage, op. cit., pp. 357, 3 

*JIn The Rise of dhe p. 142. See above, p. 39, for its in- 
corporation in the Trades Delegates’ program. For Lovett’s account 
of this organization, see his Life and Struggles, pp. 335-341. See also 
Dolléans, op. cit., II. 392. 


68 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


distasteful to them. Hume took the proposal to the Free 
Trade Club and got about fifty to agree to financial reform 
and household suffrage. Place remarked to Lovett about 
this time, ‘‘It will be some time to come before the words 
Chartism and Universal Suffrage will meet with favor in 
the direction you seem to be looking.’’* In fact, the middle- 
class household suffrage movement was even then beginning 
to get under way with the purpose of attracting the Chartists 
over to its program as one upon which the two classes might 
possibly cooperate. Hume had begun to advocate in the 
House of Commons his “Little Charter” based on household 
suffrage. The League expired after a few months. The 
significance of it, however, is not small.* It revealed the 
difficulties that obstructed even the most reasonable and 
conciliatory advances of Chartists to the middle classes. 
The pivotal point appeared to be the issue of manhood versus 
a restricted suffrage; in reality it was the issue of working- 
class versus middle-class control of the government, and 
behind this stood questions of a social and economic nature. 

Another similar, but in some respects a more fortunate, 
organization was the People’s Charter Union, formed by 
several hundred moderates, including five or six men who 
years before had been the organizers of a fight against the 
tax on newspapers. Later they had organized the first 
Chartist body. Among them were Lovett, Hetherington, 
James Watson, George Jacob Holyoake, and C. D. Collett. 
The aim of this Union was to appeal for middle-class support 
for the six points of the Charter and for a free press.* 
Soon it began to concentrate upon the latter issue. It opened 
negotiations with Cobden, and, at his advice, a council 


* Lovett, op. cit., p. 335; West, op. cit., p. 258. 
? Lovett, op. cit., p. 335. 


*The People (ed. J. Barker, Wortley) No. 10, 1848, contains an 
account of the League. 


“Ibid., Nos. 30 and 37. Also, West, op. cit., pp. 258-60. 






A NEW POLICY 69 


| 
| 


of ten separated from the main body and started to work 
independently. It soon gained an influential middle-class 
support under the title of the Newspaper Tax Abolition 
_ Committee. In February, 1851, Cobden, who had been 
| supporting the Committee, formed a new association of his 
| party, but took in as members all of the former Committee. 
This new body was the “Association for the Repeal of the 
Taxes on Knowledge,” with Milner Gibson as president, 


_ Place as treasurer, Richard Moore, the Chartist, as chair- 
_man, and Collet as secretary. The executive committee in- 
cluded Cobden, George Dawson of Birmingham, Passmore 
_Edwards, Thornton Hunt, and the Reverend Thomas 
Spencer. The first legislative victory of the association was 
the repeal of the advertisement duty in 1853; others were 
_ the repeal of the newspaper tax in 1855; of the paper duty in 
1861; and of the securities system in 1869.1. Thus the 
Chartist group initiated the movement that became the effec- 
tive agent in abolishing all restrictions upon the press. The 
movement, therefore, fulfilled an object that had been dear 
to the hearts of workingmen from the beginning of the 
century and was a step in realizing their constant policy of 
bringing education to the working classes. But it must be 
noted that this Chartist organization succeeded only when it 
ceased to be Chartist. Radical sympathy was dead to all 
except its purely Radical demands. 

One of the most remarkable programs put forward dur- 
ing this period was that of the National Reform League, 
formed late in 1849 by Bronterre O’Brien, G. W. M. 
Reynolds,? Lloyd Jones, the Chartist and Christian Social- 








*C. D. Collet, A History of the Taxes on Knowledge, London, 
1899. I. 136-7. 

?He had recently become a Chartist. In 1850 he began to publish 
Reynolds’s Newspaper, which soon became one of the most widely read 
by the working classes of all London papers. It was an able but extreme 
and violent weekly. It still exists. 


70 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ist, and others, upon the principles of O’Brien. It sought 
political reform, but also sweeping social reforms. O’Brien 
lectured constantly in behalf of its principles, “which,” says 
Gammage, “were speedily embraced by the élite of the 
London democracy.”? Some students of Chartism seem 
to think that this League died almost immediately and that 
O’Brien then, in 1850, went into a “National Regeneration 
Union.”? The fact appears to be that the two organiza- 
tions were identical, the full title being the “National Reform 
League for the Peaceful Regeneration of Society.” In 
November, 1849, a Chartist paper stated that the followers 
of O’Brien were organizing a National Reform League.* 
Then on March 16, 1850, at a crowded meeting held in 
London, certain resolutions were adopted upon O’Brien’s 
motion which were then printed and distributed under the 
title of “Propositions of the National Reform League for 
the Peaceful Regeneration of Society, Liberty in Right; 
Equality in Law; Fraternity in Industry.”* It hardly 
seems possible that two such similar bodies in name and 
personnel should have been formed, one in November, 1849, 
and the other in March, 1850. March 16 was doubtless the 
date of the formal launching of the organization. 

The propositions put forward by this association included 
manhood suffrage; a reform of the Poor Law so as to 
render the poor self-supporting, relief to be considered as a 
right ; government purchase of lands and the location thereon 
of the unemployed; mitigation of the burden of taxation 
which had been “vastly aggravated by the monetary and 


* History of the Chartist Movement, ed. 1894, p. 351. 

7 See Slosson, of. cit., p. 108. Beer, History of British Socialism, 
II. 174, lists the two as distinct. West, History of the Chartist Move- 
ment, p. 261, mentions only the National Reform League for the Peaceful 
Regeneration of Society, formed in March, 1850. 

* The Democratic Review. 

*A copy of this pamphlet is in the Goldsmiths’ Library. The fore- 
word gives the facts about its adoption. 


ANEW POLICY Tih 


free trade measures of Sir Robert Peel”; the adjustment of 
public and private debts in the interest of the debtor and 
producing classes, and the charging of the public debt to 
real property alone; the gradual resumption by the State of 
‘its “former proprietorship” over all lands, mines, fisheries, 
-etc., which should be held in trust for the people and rented 
to them, the rents to take the place of all other taxes. “As it 
‘is the recognized duty of the State to support all of its sub- 
jects who . . . are unable to procure their own subsistence,” 
there should be a system of national credit to enable men to 
rent and cultivate the lands. Currency should be based upon 
real, consumable wealth; public markets should be estab- 
| lished for the exchange of products valued according to a 
corn or labor standard. The government should expropriate 
the owners of such public utilities as railways, canals, docks, 
and gas works. 

O’Brien, the “‘schoolmaster of Chartism’ and one of 
‘its thinkers claimed by modern Marxian Socialists,’ was 
able to gather a flock of only about five hundred followers,” 
while the nature of his program itself rendered impos- 
sible the acceptance by the middle classes of his tendered 
alliance. But, contrary to the opinion of most students of 
‘this period, his League did not expire soon. It was in 
existence as late as in 1867. In 1866 it sought affiliation 
with the Reform League ;? the year before it had become 
a branch of the International Working Men’s Association, 
and in 1867 sent a delegate to its congress.* O’Brien lived 
on, no doubt in connection with it, until 1864. 








*See an article by Bruce Glazier in the Labour Leader, January 13, 
1919. West, op. cit., p. 72, says of him: “All the theories ‘and most of 
the shibboleths bound up ‘with Marxian Socialism are to be found in 
his pronouncements.” See also ibid., p. 226. 

? Freethinkers’ Magazine, December 1, 1850. 

* Minutes of the General Council of the Reform League. 

*Minutes of the Council of the I. W. M. A., November 6, 1866. 
The association is mentioned as the “National Reform League, founded 


72 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


And so, with trade-unions both political and non-politi- 
cal in policy, Christian Socialists, Chartists, land nationaliz- 
ers, currency reformers, social revolutionaries, and advo- 
cates of a Radical alliance all preaching their several and sun- 
dry gospels to the workingman at this mid-point of the cen- 
tury, small wonder if he found himself bewildered by the 
multitude of counsels. In order to bring some sort of 
order out of this chaos of schemes and to redeem the democ- 
racy from impotence through schism, conferences were 
held late in 1850 for the purpose of uniting Chartists, 
Christian Socialists, the trades, and other bodies in one 
great ‘National Charter and Social Reform Union,” with 
a double program as implied in the name. Along with 
political democracy, reforms to be sought were a system of 
national education, free speech and press, equitable taxa- 
tion, land nationalization, and laws to permit cooperative 
associations. Thus was the attempt made to proclaim 
frankly the social aims which had been implicit in political 
_Chartism from the first. 

But disagreement arose at the very outset, and the 
scheme was inevitably futile. Only the Christian Socialists, 
it was said, mustered strongly and evinced a sincere desire 
for union.” 

The Chartist world by 1851 was, it is evident, being 
divided into two factions by the two related questions : should 
social reform be an avowed object along with political, and 
1849,” and in the minutes of the Reform League it is referred to by 
the same name, though the date is not given, and it is called a purely 
political body. In 1867 A. A. Walton, its president, attended the Con- 


gress of the International. (Minutes of the I. W. M. A., August 20, 
1867). 

*A good account is in the Freethinkers’ Magazine for December 
1, 1850 and January 1, 1851. Delaforce, secretary of the Metropolitan 
Trades Delegates, was a delegate to the Conferences. The committee 
in charge included Holyoake, Walter Cooper, Harney, Reynolds, Thorn- 
ton Hunt, and Gerald Massie. O’Connor, Jones, and O’Brien were 
either hostile or indifferent. 

* Freethinkers’ Magazine, December 1, 1850. 


| A NEW) POLICY US 


secondly, should Chartists abandon a policy of political iso- 
lation and seek the aid of the middle classes? Some did not 
see the impossibility of pursuing the two policies simul- 
taneously. The manner in which these Chartist develop- 
ments were related to the Radical movement for a political 
alliance with workingmen will be explained later. 

Before taking up specifically a consideration of the or- 
ganization formed in 1848 to secure such an alliance, cer- 
tain other currents of thought must be noted which, how- 
ever futile in themselves, were yet appreciable elements in 
the political atmosphere in which the new organization was 
struggling to live. Ernest Jones in his Notes to the People 
(1851-2) and his People’s Paper (1852-8), to which Marx 
was a contributor, was setting forth his socialistic analysis 
and demanding control of both machinery and land by some 
form of nation-wide association.1 The influence of Jones 
upon working-class thought from 1850 to the time of his 
death in 1869 was much more profound than is generally 
supposed. The chief question before the country, to his 
thinking, was the land question. In fact, says Professor 
Ernest Barker, it has always been land rather than capital 
that English socialists haye attacked.2 About 1850 
many Chartist papers and pamphlets were attacking private 
property in land. Some of them argued especially for a 
policy that soon was advocated by the English working-class 
as a whole, that it was the duty of the government to place 
the waste lands at the disposal of the unemployed. 





* Notes to the People, May, 1851. Also see F. Leary, The Life 
of Ernest Jones, pp. 31 ff., for Jones’s theories. 

2A History of English Political Thought from Herbert Spencer to 
the Present Day, p. 214. 

*See Democratic Review, June, 1849; the Leicestershire Movement, 
May 25, 1850; English Republic, 1851-55, p. 91; the Truth Promoter, 
1851, No. 30. Some tracts are Land Common Property, by Terrigenous 
(R. Isham), 3d. edit. London, 1852; The Land of England belongs to 
the People of England, 1849. 


74 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Such attacks upon landed property were the cause of a 
further confusion of cross-currents in English politics. 
They furnished a common ground upon which the middle 
and working classes could stand, at least to the extent of 
denouncing the landed interests, however much they might 
differ as to a theoretical justification and the ultimate goal. 
On the other hand, aristocratic support of working-class 
extremists, which might be readily enough accorded as long 
as the object was an attack upon industrial employers or 
the Manchester School, would be alienated the instant the 
land system became the object of serious criticism. The 
land question persisted from that day on as a bond between 
workingmen and Radicals, the latter laboring persistently 
with the support of the former to establish “free trade in 
land” by the abolition of primogeniture and entail. This 
aspect of the question was pointed out by Shaftesbury in a 
letter to Russell written in 1851: ‘“Socialistic doctrines 
and principles are far more rife in the great towns of this 
country than most people are aware of. They are found 
principally among the artisans and skilled workmen, and 
especially in the metropolis. These parties aim at a distribu- 
tion of all the property of those above them, and calculate on 
measures to prevent, in the future, all accumulations of 
wealth in single hands. They do not, I think, look much to 
physical force; they rely chiefly on the extension of the 
suffrage. ... The land is their first object . . . and many who 
are not disposed to go so far as the Socialist party urge 
them on to this extent, because they know that a revolution 
in the tenure, or descent, of landed property must speedily 
extinguish the House of Lords.’”? 

This lengthy survey of working-class thought in its 
various manifestations in the period of intellectual ferment 
about 1850—a survey which is necessary in order to render 


*Hodder, Life of Shaftesbury, II. 372-3. 


A NEW POLICY 75 







intelligible the background of the contemporary political 
-movement—reveals anything but an acceptance of the 
opinion reckoned as orthodox among the middle and upper 
classes. Furthermore, republicanism and internationalism 
were two other factors in working-class opinion that had to 
be reckoned with. The former principle exerted but slight 
influence; the latter was henceforth an important element 
in working-class politics, and thereby in English politics as 
-a whole.t So internationally minded had English work- 
_ingmen become by 1850 that they found themselves on this 
| point also out of harmony with their would-be allies of Man- 
chester. Cobden and Bright believed in pacifism and economic 
‘cosmopolitanism as a concomitant of industrial expansion 
and free trade. “The best diplomacy is that of commerce, 
_and merchants are destined to become the pacificators of the 
world,” wrote a free-trade journal.2, Workingmen more 
-nearly concurred in Harney’s denunciation of “the “balmy 
balderdash’ of peace and non-intervention,’*® or in Linton’s 
declaration that ‘“‘non-intervention between States is the 
same as laissez-faire between individuals: the liberty of the 
strongest—the right of ruffianism—Anarchy.’* This 
divergence of view on foreign affairs continued to differen- 
_tiate workingmen and Radicals until the working-class view, 
_in the time of Gladstone, came to displace the Radical as 
determining the policy of the Liberal party. Not only did 
this sympathy for Continental liberation movements have a 





*Slosson, op. cit., p. 96; Beer, op. cit., II. 167; Howell, op. cit., p. 
289; West. op. cit., p. 242. Also see Holyoake, Sixty Years of an 
Agitator’s Life, 1. 90-92, for the influence of Mazzini and other refugees; 
Linton’s English Republic (1851-5); Harney’s Democratic Review 
(1849-50) and Red Republican (1850). The Operative occasionally 
wrote against royalty and in favor of a republic (February 15, March 1, 
December, 1851). 

?The Woollen, Worsted and Cotton Journal; or Monthly Magazine 
of Industry, August, 1853. 

* Democratic Review, August, 1849. 

“The English Republic, 1851-5, p. 31. 








76 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


bearing on the relations between English labor and the 
Manchester School on the one hand and between labor and 
Gladstone on the other; it also created a barrier between 
workingmen and the Conservatives. The Conservative 
party, in the main, upheld legitimacy on the Continent and 
would have no dealings with revolution. A final influence 
exerted by this attitude of the working classes with regard to 
foreign policy was that it brought them into touch with a 
group of independent, doctrinaire radicals of the middle 
class, whose friendship was to prove an element in effecting 
general class reconciliation.’ 


Among these were George Dawson of Birmingham, Joseph Cowen 
of Newcastle, T. S. Duncombe, M.P. for Finsbury, P. A. Taylor, later 
M.P. for Leicester, Joseph Toynbee, Dr. Bowring, M.P. for Bolton, 
Douglas Jerrold, James Stansfeld, later M.P. and member of Glad- 
stone’s government, and Viscount Goderich. On this see R. J. Hinton, 
English Radical Leaders, p. 61, and Holyoake, Sixty Years, I. 266. 

The nationalist movements in Poland, Hungary, and Italy made a 
powerful appeal to the sympathies of English working men. In 1846 
was formed a Democratic Committee for the Regeneration of Poland; 
the next year was formed a People’s International League, at the sug- 
gestion of Mazzini; in 1848 a Central European Democratic Committee 
was formed. Kossuth’s visit to England in 1851 was the occasion of 
scores of excited meetings in the industrial centers (English Republic, 
p. 375, and Britannia, November 22, 1851; also the Operative, November 
1, 1851). Polish meetings were numerous. See English Republic for 
1853, p. 264, and Northern Tribune, March, 1855. These sentiments, so 
strongly held among workingmen, had some part in creating a demand 
for war with Russia in 1854. 


CHAPTER Mt 


THE PARLIAMENTARY AND FINANCIAL 
REFORM ASSOCIATION 
_ After this somewhat minute dissection of working-class 
opinion and activities during the first years of that period 
which was to be characterized by the gradual evolution of the 
: Liberal-Labor alliance, it is now possible with greater under- 
standing to take up for consideration the concrete organi- 
‘zation formed in 1849 for the purpose of promoting such a 


connection. That organization was the Parliamentary and 
Financial Reform Association. Its promoters were the Radi- 
cals. What was sought was in reality a Radical-Labor 


alliance. 
The Radicals at that time could in an undiscriminating 
classification be reckoned as Liberals in a party sense, but the 


distance between them and the still predominant Whig ele- 


ment in the party was so wide as almost to constitute them a 
separate party. Trevelyan, in his life of Bright, describes 
the period between the repeal of the Corn Laws and the 
death of Palmerston in 1865 as one of parliamentary confu- 
sion, of weak governments, of rapid combinations and dis- 


solution of political partnerships, the most uncertain elements 


being the Radicals, the Irish, and the Peelites.1. This con- 
fusion was not merely parliamentary and official. It was 
the result of currents running ever deeper and fuller in 


English social life, currents whose source and constant 


augmentation were from the profound industrial and social 
forces relentlessly at work reshaping external forms to a 





completer harmony with fundamental realities. The two 
groups most consciously a part of and affected by these deep- 


*G. M. Trevelyan, The Life of John Bright, London, 1913, p. 178. 


78 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


moving forces were the employers and the workers in indus- 
try. Their response, therefore, to the impelling need of 
readjustment was more immediate than that of Whigs or 
Tories, whose ideas and interests were, in the main, more 
closely related to the system that was passing. On both 
sides of the House were representatives of old governing 
families connected with the land or conservative business. 
The difference between them was more one of degree than 
of kind. Their domination of English politics had not been 
immediately shaken by the reform of 1832. So far the 
governments had all been aristocratic, and, from the point of 
view of the new aggressive social elements, it mattered little 
whether they were chosen from Whig or Tory families. 
There was in reality, however, a significant distinction 
between the two parties. The Whigs were only a part of a 
larger group, the Liberals; and the Liberal party included 
within its compass the industrial middle class, followers of 
Bentham and James Mill—the Manchester School. It also 
included another active political element, Dissent. Liberal- 
ism, therefore, was not an integer. Its Whig element drew 
it close to enlightened Conservatism, but its other elements 
exercised a contrary attraction. Now Manchesterism, 
quickly responsive, as has been said, at least to certain aspects 
of the new economic and social conditions, was drawn to an 
alliance with the other industrial group, labor. It con- 
ceived of the future of England as dominated by industrial- 
ism.' Consequently the policy of middle-class industrialists 
consisted of two elements; namely, first, the industrial 
reconciliation of capital and labor by teaching labor the in- 


*Several articles in the Woollen, Worsted and Cotton Journal set 
forth clearly the political aspirations ‘of the manufacturers. It declared 
franchise reform was to be desired only as it would promote the legis- 
lative demands of business (April, 1853). It declared against any 
form of suffrage that would give political control to labor, frankly 
stating that the issue was the middle class versus the aristocracy. 
(August, 1853). 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 79 


-evitable truth of competitive, laissez faire economics, and, 
secondly, some sort of political amalgamation of the two, 
_for the purpose of taking the political guidance of the coun- 
try out of the hands of Whigs and Tories and themselves 
guiding it toward peace, complete civil and religious liberty, 
and industrial freedom. Thus the center of social and 
political power would ultimately be transferred from the 
land to industry. 

What would be the response of Liberalism to the de- 
mands of its Radical, industrial wing? Could it be drawn 
_ over to an adoption of their program entire? Sucha change 
would involve an alteration in the British constitution, 
based as it was upon classes, themselves based upon a definite 
recognition of the two types of property, land and business, 
with the priority given to land through its control of the 
House of Lords. Could it open its doors to labor, to democ- 
racy? Herein lies explanation enough of the confusion 
within Liberal ranks until the question should be answered. 
The conservative elements in the ranks stood steadfastly by 
the old order as long as they could, but the steady action of 
social forces gradually undermined their position. Liberal- 
ism could not live unless it widened its house to admit those 
whose knocking at the door became ever more imperious, 
because they knocked with the force that came from the 
resistless increase of their social weight. 

Thus between 1850 and 1870 the Manchester School, 
powerfully assisted by Dissent, transformed the Liberal 
party and brought it over to an alliance with labor. But 
the Manchester School itself died in the process of creating 





I 
(| 


*As an example of the effort to educate working men in economics 
cf. certain prize essays, written by workingmen, published by the 
Leicester Chamber of Commerce in 1849. The preface to the pamphlet 
stated that the object was to diffuse sound views on labor and wages 
among workingmen. Note in this connection the comment of von 
Schulze-Gaevernitz in Social Peace, p. 26, ‘The extraordinary influence 
of ‘Political Economy’ springs from the fact that it was merely the in- 
dustrial, middle class view of life thrown into the form of a theory.” 


80 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


this new political alignment, and its death was as much the 
result of the operation of social and economic influences as 
was its victory over Whiggism. The political cooperation 
of capital and labor proved to be impossible to secure wholly 
upon capital’s terms. Identification of industrial interests, 
the necessary accompaniment to political identification in the 
eyes of the Manchester group, could not be realized. The 
political aims of labor were, therefore, only in part the same 
as those of capital. The two interests could stand together 
for civil and religious liberty; their ways diverged appreci- 
ably upon the question of international relations, and parted 
completely upon the issue of the special economic demands 
of labor. 

The most active single figure in initiating and guiding 
the critical stages of the entente was John Bright. In the 
first few years it was Cobden, and not Bright, who was looked 
to as the political director of the movement, but the cau- 
tious leadership of Cobden, fearful of an approach to democ- 
racy, soon gave place to the bolder leadership of Bright. 
The heir of Bright’s labors, who saw the flaws in his policy, 
was Gladstone. He it was who extricated the vital, or purely 
liberal, elements from disintegrating Manchesterism and 
realized the economic incompatibility of the Radical-Labor 
alliance. He then set himself, however reluctantly, to win 
the support of labor by a partial recognition of its special 
interests; and, finally, with labor’s approval, he repudiated 
for Liberalism the Manchester policy of non-intervention in 
foreign affairs. 

In 1848 Cobden, Bright, and their colleagues set about 
their task of fusing capital and labor into one harmonious 
economic and political group. We have seen in the preced- 
ing chapter that the year 1848 saw tentative steps taken in 
several different directions to turn the attention of the 
working classes toward a policy of codperation with the 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 81 


middle classes. Sturge renewed the suggestion of a com- 
bined manhood-suffrage movement; leading Chartists set 





about forming associations based upon a policy of coopera- 
tion; and particularly did Hume in the House of Commons 
begin his agitation for the “Little Charter,” and Bright pro- 
| ject another great national league for the purpose of promot- 
ing reform.* 

_ The first discussion of Hume’s motion drew from 
O'Connor a promise of codperation if the middle classes 
should prove to be sincere and from Cobden an open repudia- 
tion of O’Connor and all his works.* Subsequent debates in 
the course of this year and also in 1849 and 1850—for Hume 
reintroduced his bill each year—elicited important statements 
of opinion. Cobden stated the objects reformers had in 
view in moving for the proposed reform. It would, he 
thought, bring the House of Commons more into harmony 
with the wishes and interests of the people, would insure 
economy and a more equitable distribution of taxation, and 
would, through the redistribution of seats, break the domina- 
tion of the great proprietors and the small boroughs. It 
would bring to bear upon parliament the virtues and talents 
of the middle and industrious classes “to whom the glory 
of this country is owing.’’? Bright sounded the keynote of 
“his whole reform advocacy, to be reiterated persistently until 
1867, when he declared that the reform of 1832 had not 
placed the middle classes in power. A further extension of 
the franchise was needed to accomplish that end. So in- 
timate was the relation between the middle and the working 
classes, he maintained, that the former could not, with com- 
mon sense and justice, consent to the exclusion of the latter.* 











| 
* Trevelyan, op. cit., pp. 183-4. 


| ? Hansard, TIC. 1307, 1308, 1311. 
_ *Ibid., C. 182-94. 


| eeiensard, CV. 1198. The ground of Bright’s statement as to the 
under- representation of the industrial districts is shown by the fact 























82 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


These debates revealed that the measure was feared by 
many as a menace to the constitution, since it sought to 
divorce the vote from property.t Lord John Russell and 
Sir George Grey, home secretary, opposed the measure as a 
step toward universal suffrage. A measure introduced in 
1850 to assimilate the borough and county franchise was 
condemned by Disraeli on the same grounds. Members 
were inconsistent, he urged, who would vote for this mea- 
sure and yet oppose universal suffrage.” 

The belief that Cobden and the reformers were aiming 
at a fundamental alteration of British institutions through 
an attack on property came out in a debate in this same year 
upon a motion to assimilate personal and landed property in 
matters of transfer and inheritance—the beginning of the 
Manchester agitation for “free trade in land.” Newdegate, 
a Conservative, saw in the proposal a step toward that 
“organic revolution” in the state, in society, in the tenure of 
property, “of which Cobden had recently given notice.’* 
Three years later a bill was introduced to amend the law re- 
garding inheritance taxes on land. Sir John Pakington de- 
clared,* “there was in this country a party, which had its 
representatives in the House of Commons, that was ready 
to adopt any plan which dealt a blow at the aristocratic insti- 
tutions of the country, or a blow at the property by which 
those institutions were supported.” The government, he 
maintained, was yielding to that party because it was not 
strong enough to resist. It meant a war of classes. It was 
that of borough members only eighty-six came from the north, while 
two hundred forty-eight came from the south. Of county members, 
thirty-nine came from the north and one hundred twenty-three from 
the south. (From C. Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and 
Wales, p. 97). 

* Hansard, CIX. 137 ff. This was in 1850. 
? Ibid., CXII. 1174-80, for this speech. 


* Quoted in the Atlas, March 23, 1850. 
* Hansard, CX XVIII. 65. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 83 





upon this occasion that Disraeli declared that a continuance of 
such attacks upon the landed interest would end “in chang- 
ing a first-rate kingdom into a second-rate republic.” Run- 
ning through the whole debate was the Conservative fear of 
democracy, when allied with the manufacturing interests, 
which was permanently a factor in the Conservative attitude 
‘toward an advance on democratic lines. Only as Tory- 
‘democracy could democracy ever be accepted. 

We must consider now the popular movements toward 
organization for reform. Bright urged his plan, upon 
‘Cobden, Villiers, and other Radicals.*| Finally, in January, 
1849, at a large meeting in Manchester, Bright and Cobden 
explained their plans. Cobden insisted, for his part, upon 
‘the adoption by the projected organization of the policy of 
creating forty-shilling freeholds in urban sections of coun- 
ties, a policy which had aided the anti-Corn Law agitation. 
Cobden said afterwards that at this meeting financial reform 
received more favor than parliamentary reform.? The 
fact is, Cobden was opposed to Bright’s scheme from the 
start, saying that he was not so sanguine as he once was as 
‘to the effect of a wide extension of the franchise. To him 
financial reform was the all-important issue. The forty- 
shilling freehold policy, he believed, would liberalize the 
‘county constituencies sufficiently to destroy Conservative 
control there, and thus in parliament.* 

Cobden had, in fact, insisted from the first that it would 
be impossible to induce the Manchester free traders to join 
a movement for democratic reform.* He saw already that 
tendency toward conservatism in the upper middle classes 





*John Morley, Life of Richard Cobden, Boston, 1881, pp. 334, 348. 
Also Trevelyan, Life of Bright, pp. 183-4; Garnett, Life of W. J. 
| Fox, p. 271. 


* Morley, Cobden, p. 334. 
* Tbid., p. 335. 
*Ibid., p. 348. 











84 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


of Lancashire which became so marked a feature of the 
politics of the county thereafter. Trevelyan explains that 
this group, having won free trade, were even then preparing 
to amalgamate socially and politically with the aristocracy.* 
To Bright Cobden’s schemes were wholly inadequate. The 
result of this division of opinion was that Bright’s projected 
Commons’ League came to nothing. 

Cobden’s plans, on the other hand, were already material- 
izing. In 1848 there had been formed a purely middle- 
class association to work for financial reform and complete 
free trade—the Liverpool Financial Reform Association, 
with Robertson Gladstone as chairman. This association, 
supported by all the Manchester party, continued to be in- 
fluential throughout the rest of the century. In the same 
year the freehold movement was launched at Birmingham 
with the object of winning the county constituencies. In 
1849 Cobden and half a dozen other Radicals formed a 
similar society for London, which grew with great rapidity 
under the name of the National Freehold Land Society.* 
The movement was taken up all over the country, and soon 
Cobden was writing enthusiastically to Bright® that they 
ought to be able to double the county constituencies in 
seven years and thus secure a better support for reforms 
than universal suffrage. They might then see the Tories 
crying out for universal suffrage in order to pit ignorance 

* Trevelyan, Life of Bright, p. 177. 

? Reformers’ Almanack and Political Year Book, London, 1849. An 
advertisement of the Association gives these facts. R. Gladstone was a 
brother of W. E. Gladstone. See also R. A. Woods, English Social 
Movements, N. Y., 1891, p. 69. 

° The first annual report of this first organization was published in 
the Democratic and Social Almanac for 1850, London, 1849, p. 11 (in 
the Goldsmiths’ Library). At that time eighteen similar bodies had 
been formed in such places as Coventry, Northampton, Stafford, and 
the metropolis. 

“The Freeholder’s Circular (organ of the society) contains accounts 
of the origin of the organization in the numbers for April 13, 1861, 


and March 15, 1867. 
°In October, 1849; Morley, Life of Cobden, pp. 345-6. 





THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 85 






nd vice against the “‘teetotalers, non-conformists and 
rational Radicals, who would constitute nine-tenths of our 
phalanx of forty-shilling freeholders.”” He continued: 
“The citadel of privilege in this country is so terribly strong 
owing to the concentrated masses of property in the hands 
of the comparatively few that we cannot hope to assail it 
with success unless with the help of the propertied classes 
in the middle ranks of society, and by raising up a portion of 
the working class to become members of a propertied order.” 
Even earlier he had written that he believed this scheme to 
be the “only safe, certain and legal means of effecting those 
further political changes which are necessary to bring the 





government into harmony with the wants and wishes of a 
majority of the people of this country.””4 


_ Simultaneously with Bright’s attempt and failure to 
organize a great national party under the auspices of the 
free traders and with the initiation of Cobden’s more suc- 
cessful, because purely middle-class, projects, another move- 
ment had been inaugurated, which possesses much signif- 
icance for the historian for two reasons. It exerted some 
definite political influence in England for several years after 
it was launched, since it aimed to support Hume in parlia- 
ment; and, of more importance, it constituted the second 
experimental stage in the ever-recurring and fundamentally 
necessary attempt to combine the two industrial classes into 
one political party. As such, it affords an opportunity to 
analyze the essential elements in the problem. The first ex- 
periment had been Sturge’s Complete Suffrage Movement 
of 1842. Later ones were to be Bright’s movement of 
1858-9 and the various attempts at organization made during 
the years of 1864-7. 


*Letter to Scholefield, M.P. for Birmingham. Quoted in Reformer’s 
Almanack and Political Year Book, London, 1849, p. 65. 


86 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


In the very same month in which Bright sought to form 
his Commons’ League, the National Parliamentary and 
Financial Reform Association was formed at a meeting of 
several hundred reformers convened by Francis Place at 
the Crown and Anchor Tavern in London on January 29, 
1849.1 This organization was formed with the object of 
promoting franchise reform as a necessary prerequisite to 
securing other reforms, particularly economy in national ex- 
penditures. It also proposed to attend to the registration 
of voters and to promote the freehold movement. Thus its 
program sought to attract reformers from all classes, those 
who desired organic change and those who looked to prac- 
tical, middle-class measures. Sir Joshua Walmsley, a demo- 
crat who had loyally advocated the cause of the Chartists in 
the House as M.P. for Leicester, was elected president. In 
March its address was published, advocating household 
suffrage and the other points of Hume’s “Little Charter.” 
Its first public meeting was held in May, at which, says the 
Association’s authorized report, for the first time in years 
all classes of reformers met upon common ground. In 
August, at a great meeting in Drury Lane Theater, the first 
modification of its program took place, making it include the 
abolition of property qualifications for members of parlia- 
ment and the enfranchisement of lodgers.? This altera- 
tion is significant. It was a response to pressure by work- 
ing-class adherents. The Association held over sixty meet- 
ings in the metropolis in the course of a few months and 
made its entry into the provinces by a “magnificent demon. 

1 An account of the origin and first year’s activities of the Associatior 
is given in the Reformers’ Almanack and Political Year Book, London 
1850, pp. 33-4. This publication was issued under the sanction of the 
Association. Place’s copy is in the Goldsmiths’ Library. The Asso- 
ciation at first took the name “Metropolitan” but in August changec 
it to “National.” 

2The Democratic Review, August, 1849. Under the technical term 


“lodger” were included perhaps the majority of workingmen in thi 
metropolis. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 87 








tration” at Norwich in October. By this time it had won at 
least the outward support of the entire Radical group in 
parliament and boasted eighteen members of parliament on 
its council. Hume was its special spokesman in the 
House. 

_ But what was the real attitude toward the movement on 
the part of the middle classes and working men? Let it be 
remembered that the active members of the working classes 
were then Chartists, or Christian Socialists, or trade- 
‘unionists, and as such held to the various creeds that were 
‘explained in the preceding chapter. From the moment of 
‘the formation of the association the moderate Chartists had 
Jooked upon it with favor, though they hoped to induce it to 
accept the Charter as its platform.” At the Drury Lane 
‘meeting in August the association did consent to extend its 
program, as above described, and it was then that O’Con- 
mnor’s adhesion was given. Soon O’Connor was described 
as being enamored of the scheme, even following Cobden to 
Aylesbury upon one occasion to support him in advocating 
it? 

The more extreme Chartists, however, were of a differ- 
ent mind. The result was that by 1851 the question of sup- 
porting the Association had split the Chartist body into two 
hostile factions. The opposition was led by George Julian 
Harney* and Ernest Jones. Harney wrote:° “The ob- 
ject of Cobden with his freehold land scheme, and Walmsley 
with his ‘Little Charter’ is, clearly, to so far extend the 
suffrage as to swamp the House with representatives of the 























* Ibid. 
*Gammage, History of the Chartist Movement (ed. of 1894), pp. 
347-353, discusses the relation of the Chartists to the association. 


*Gammage, History of the Chartist Movement (1894), p. 351. Also 
the Britannia, January 12, 1850. 


*Writing in his Democratic Review, and in the Northern Star 
(O’Connor’s paper), of which Harney was editor until June, 1850. 


° Democratic Review, February, 1850. 


88 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 







‘Manchester School.’ In short, the policy of both is to mak 
use of the proletarians to establish bourgeois supremacy.’ 
That they did not mean to help the poor, he said, was proved 
by their support of the new Poor Law, their opposition to 
the Ten Hour Law and the bill for the protection of the 
London bakers. ‘The feudal lords have scourged the 
proletarians with whips, but the money lords will scourge 
them with scorpions.” Let the middle classes fulfill their 
mission to overthrow the feudal aristocracy, but let the peo- 
ple beware lest their dominance shall then follow. . 

That workingmen were constantly contrasting the politi- 
cal expressions of the Radicals with their opposition to 
social legislation is certain. During 1850 Slaney, of 
Shrewsbury, was trying to have appointed by the House a 
commission to work out schemes for the social improvement 
of the people.t_ A Chartist journal of Leicester noted that 
“the professing friends of the working classes, by all sorts 
of excuses and evasions, contrived to throw cold water upon 
the motion, which led to its ultimate withdrawal.” It con- 
tinued : 


: 
, 


This act tends to show the animus of those who pretend to be 
the working men’s friends. So far as the government is concerned 

the working classes are to be left in their life-and-death struggle 

with poverty, pauperism, and the aggressions of capital. Tory, 
Whig and Radical agree that “let alone’ must be the order of the 
day. Even Parliamentary and Financial reformers do not think 

that the social conditions of the people can be improved by the 
appointment of any commission. We trust working men will think 

of this. Of what use will a reform in Parliament be to them unless 
they make use of this power by legislating for labour? Working — 
men who move in this matter have this for their object. Then 

how shallow must be those Parliamentary Reformers, who opposed 

Mr. Slaney, and who seem to imagine that the working classes are 

enamoured of their laissez faire, free trade, negative notions of 

government.? 


*See Hansard, CIX. 359 ff. 
* The Leicestershire Movement, March 16, 1850. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 89 


The Labour League, spokesman, it will be remembered, 






for the National Association of Organized Trades, expressed 
its distrust of the political movement at the outset be- 
cause of its skepticism as to the willingness of any party in 
parliament to effect social reforms, or of the Radical re- 
formers to do more than use the popular force to gain 
power for themselves in order to legislate according to their 
‘own ideas of political economy. The League promised 
to continue to “unveil the insidious plottings of the heartless 
'Malthusians.” Cooper, the Chartist, in his Journal wrote 
that of Cobden and others prominent in the movement “the 
‘masses in the manufacturing districts are now speaking out 
‘their opinions with a bitterness which can only increase in 
strength until it amounts to open hostility.”? Without 
question this bitterness was immediately due to the attempts 
at that moment being made to nullify or amend the Ten 
Hour Law, which were causing widespread excitement 
among the operatives of the North.? 

Early in 1851 the schism in Chartist ranks was com- 
plete. An unofficial conference was called at Manchester 
by the O’Connorite Chartists (as distinct from the Jones 
faction now in control of the regular organization), at 
which the chief subjects of discussion were the wisdom of 
abandoning the social aims of their agitation and, secondly, 
the expediency of an alliance with the middle-class move- 
ment. After heated debates a large body seceded from 
the Conference and issued an address as from the Man- 
chester Chartist Association, in which they definitely aban- 

















* March 17, 1849, 

* Cooper's Journal, or Unfettered Thinker and Plain Speaker for 
Truth, Freedom and Progress. London, 1850, January 12, 1850. 

* See above, p. 59. 

*The Northern Star, January 25, February 1, 8, 1851. The object 
for which the conference was called was to consider efforts to convert 
the middle-class reformers to the justice and expediency of adopting 
manhood suffrage. 


90 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


doned all social revolutionary objects and frankly advocate 

cooperation with the middle classes, the Parliamentary an 

Financial Reform Association in particular, to work fo 

political reform.’ The address con by declaring . 
Charter to be ‘‘a mere political measure.’ 

It was in answer to this pronouncement that the regi 
Chartist organization (the National Charter Association), 
under the leadership of Ernest Jones, took its stand upon 
the wide program of socialistic reform that was noted in 
the preceding chapter, thus adhering to the policy of class 
war. Jones denounced the Manchester move as a conspir- 
acy “to hand over the Chartists to the Manchester School.’ 
Thus was the issue squarely joined. The cleavage among 
the working classes was along a line that had been marked 
out from the very beginning of the democratic movement 
even before 1832. It was a deep and abiding cleavage; 
only partially and temporarily was it bridged over during 
the next three decades. Now, important political develop- 
ments in England depended upon how great a number of 
the working classes stood on the side of the line that meant 
an acceptance of middle-class economics and therewith of a 
middle-class political alliance. . 

Many workingmen welcomed the new reform associa- 
tion as a means of class reconciliation and of effecting 
parliamentary reform, which, they had learned, the working 
classes were not able to effect alone. But, even among the 
adherents of the association, division was rife from the 
first. The middle-class supporters advocated a rate-paying 
household suffrage, which would exclude many. Working- 
men, on the other hand, urged the association to come out 


*The Council of the Manchester Chartist Association to the Demo- 
cratic Reformers of Great Britain, 1851. (Pamphlet from Lovett’s 
collection in the Goldsmiths’ Library). 


* Gammage, op. cit., p. 360. See above, p. 67. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 91 


for manhood suffrage. Lovett individually addressed the 
middle-class members on “Justice safer than Expediency.’ 
Thomas Frost, a Chartist of Croydon, whose memoirs are 
an interesting comment upon these years, while urging 
‘Chartists to support the movement as an instrument to be 
used against those who opposed all reform, yet understood 
‘clearly the limitations which the middle classes tacitly im- 
posed. They desired, he said, to enfranchise the rest of 
the shop-keepers and exclude workingmen. What they de- 
sired was a diminution of taxation; if they could get that 
without parliamentary reform they would not be for the 
latter. But now, as in 1832, they needed the workingmen. 
These, however, he believed could be won only by the adop- 
‘tion of manhood suffrage, which the middle classes would 
never consent to. 

An analysis of the movement from Harney’s paper?® 


is worth quoting: 





Delusion apart, the new “union” amounts to this: the bourgeoisie 
will not unite with the proletarians for the Charter, but they cannot 
‘obtain their own pet measure of “reform” without help; they, there- 
'fore, make certain concessions, use coaxing language, and talk 
vaguely of a future when . . . Universal Suffrage, or the entire 
\Charter, may possibly have their support. The Chartists, though 
junwilling to abandon the measure for which they have so long 
\struggled, are conscious that they have not the strength to achieve 
their favourite object, whilst struggling by themselves; they, there- 
‘fore, accept the terms offered by their more moderate allies. The 
|\two parties, weak in themselves, acquire strength by their union, 
‘and may prove strong enough to carry the “reform” they are agreed 
to support. 


A pamphlet of 1849+ described the new association as 
an attempt at “combining the Liverpool with the Notting- 


*This division appeared at the Drury Lane meeting in August, 
1849. See Democratic Review for that month. 

«Life and Struggles, pp. 349-50. 
| * Democratic Review, August, 1849. 

“Prospects of Reform: A letter to Sir Joshua Walmsley, M.P.., 
‘London, 1849 (British Museum). The reference to Liverpool had 
in mind the Liverpool Financial Reform Association; to Nottingham, 
the fact that O’Connor was Member for that borough. 


























92 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ham ethics,” and seeking by its title to catch both a 
economically minded middle class and also those grou 
whose chief grievance was political degradation. But i 
charged the Radicals with insincerity. Hume, it declare 

gave his motion but little else; Bright, Cobden, and Gibso 
were secretly opposed. Cobden especially, it believed, ha 
no democratic faith and, under the guise of friendly counse 
was seeking to thwart the efforts of those who had. The 
pamphlet concluded upon this pessimistic note: “The middle 
class, as a class, you have not gained over to you, and, what 
ever your principles, you never will; for that class, as < 
class, is the most essentially Conservative.” 











During 1850 the association assumed larger proportion 
Public meetings were frequent. Almost invariably a dis 
agreement occurred between the middle class and the ma 
hood suffragists. Cobden and Bright spoke occasionally of 
behalf of the movement, and others from the former Com 
plete Suffrage Movement of 1842 gave it strong support 
among them Miall and the Reverend Thomas Spencer.' 
The agitation was extended to Scotland, while Georg 
Thompson (M.P. for Tower Hamlets and Chartist adv 
cate) and Walmsley were campaigning for it in the North/ 
The Executive Council issued another address,* in which i 
urged that the object of the union of classes be kept steadily 
in view. It stated that the receipts of the association hat 
amounted to five thousand pounds and that in London < 
series of lectures was soon to be given by such leaders of 

*At Aylesbury (the Britannia, January 12, 1850). At Sheffiek 
Cobden spoke, but only for financial reform and the freehold policy 
(ibid., January 26, 1850). Bright is mentioned in the Address of thi 


Council for 1850 as having been a speaker for the movement during 
1849. See note 4, below. 


* The Britannia, January 12, 1850. 
*The Public Good, 1850-1, p. 32. Also The Leicestershire Move 
ment, February 16, 23, 1850. 


* Address of the Council of the National Parliamentary and Einona 
Reform Association, London, 1850. (In the British Museum). 














THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 93 


the ‘People’s Party” as Hume, Fox, Miall, and C. J. Bunt- 
ing, the “Norwich Operative.’ 

O’Connor’s paper, the Northern Star, gave the move- 
ment much favorable publicity. It approved of its object, 
which was not final, but possible, reform. Those who de- 
sired more could use this reform as a lever with which to 
gain it.* “May the walls of exclusion,” it fervently ex- 
claimed, “now be thrown down by the united efforts of the 
N. R. A. and the Chartists, and the curse of class-legislation 
and class-domination be removed from this country!’? But 
O'Connor considered it wise to urge Chartists to maintain 
their strength in order to force an equal alliance with the 
Radicals. The Freethinkers’ Magazine, representing a 
certain influential group of workingmen then beginning to 
rally around Holyoake and Bradlaugh in the Secularist 
movement, approved of the agitation and the association, 
but it demanded complete democracy.® Another demo- 
cratic journal® besought the association to adhere to man- 
hood suffrage. “The millions in the manufacturing dis- 
tricts must ever form the numerical strength of any great 
movement for Reform; these are now waiting to hear 
‘Manhood Suffrage’ pronounced as the true and only watch- 
word in your Council.”” Some reformers, it said, spoke 
lightly of the natural right to the franchise; “but this is a 
doctrine so firmly fixed in the convictions of intelligent work- 
ingmen in this country that they would as soon think of 
denying their own existence as of denying its truth.” 

Such lack of harmony among those interested in the 
association obstructed its course with difficulties. An im- 
portant conference held in April, 1850, revealed the funda- 
| 








* A workingman who wrote many pamphlets signed thus. 
* January 5, 1850. 

* February 17, 1850. 

“January 19, 1850. 

* October 1, 1850. 

® Cooper's Journal, January 17, 1850. 














94 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


mental antagonisms present within the ranks of reformers.* 
One hundred delegates were present, including Hume, Cob- 
den, Bright, Fox, Colonel Thompson, J. H. Tillett, a rising 
Radical of Norwich, and O’Connor. Cobden, in the dis- 
cussion, made plain his lack of sympathy with the move- 
ment by insisting that political change should be gradual, the 
only feasible plans being those on foot for liberalizing the 
counties.2 The business committee of the association had 
privately disposed of the question of manhood suffrage, but 
G. W. M. Reynolds moved it from the floor. The debate 
aroused grave suspicions as to the possibility of common 
action by the two factions. The futility of the conference 
must have been recognized, for on the third day barely fifty 
delegates were present and no members of parliament ex- 
cept two democrats. Nevertheless, the conference issued an 
optimistic address, claiming that the movement had the 
adherence of one hundred and twenty members of parlia- 
ment, that delegates had come from nearly all the populous 
towns, and that the proceedings had been most harmonious.* 
It further outlined elaborate plans for agitation, attention to 
the register, promotion of the purchase of forty-shilling 
freeholds, and independent action at the polls. The Chartist 
press declared the conference a failure and lamented its re- 
fusal to accept a democratic platform.* 

The association’s official report® of its work for 1850 
recounted two hundred and twenty public meetings held 


1A full account was given in the Atlas, April 27, 1850. 

? At this point he gave evidence to show the value of the freehold 
scheme to the Anti-Corn Law League. 

? Address of the National Reform Conference to the Friends of 
Parliamentary and Financial Reform throughout the Kingdom. April 
27, 1850 (in the Goldsmiths’ Library). For Cobden’s attitude, see 
Morley, Cobden, pp. 344-5. 

“Northern Star, April 27, 1850; Cooper's Journal, May 18; Free- 
thinkers’ Magazine, June 1. Another conference held late in the year 
was a reduplication of this one. Seventeen M.P.’s attended. (Free- 
thinkers’ Magazine, November 1, 1850). 

° Address of the Council of the Parliamentary and Financial Reform 
Association, London, 1851. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 95 


(one hundred and twenty-four in the metropolis), over one 
hundred and twenty thousand tracts issued, organization of 
‘reform associations widely promoted, and the freehold 
‘movement advanced by the formation of societies for that 
purpose. Again it proposed independent electoral action by 
‘the great Radical party.’ 

__ The chances of reform’s being taken up seriously in par- 
liament brightened in 1851. Locke King’s motion for leave 
to introduce a bill for the assimilation of the county and 
borough franchise was carried against the government in a 
thin house.” Though rejected overwhelmingly on the sec- 
ond reading, the first vote had the effect of extracting from 
‘Russell a specific promise of a reform bill and from Disraeli 
a repudiation, in the name of his party, of the idea that 
they were opposed to all reform.* Furthermore, the gov- 
ernment was being hard pressed on the protection issue, hav- 








1Some account of the progress of the freehold movement may 
here be given. It grew with remarkable rapidity, partly, perhaps 
chiefly, because it proved to be a good business project. By 1850 there 
lwere eighty societies with thirty thousand members; in 1852 there 
‘were one hundred thirty societies with eighty-five thousand members ; 
‘nineteen thousand five hundred allotments of sites worth at least forty 
‘shillings a year had been made, and seven hundred ninety thousand 
pounds had been paid in. (From J. E. Ritchie, Freehold Land Socie- 
‘ties: Their History, Present Position and Claims, London, 1853). The 
Builder, early in 1854, remarked on the alarm felt lest the movement 
would lead to “an overwhelming transfusion of the democratic prin- 
ciple.” (Quoted in Provident Times, March 8, 1854). By this time 
all varieties of political groups were adopting the scheme, Conserva- 
‘tives, Teetotalers, etc. (Provident Times, March 22, 1854. The 
Liberator, September, 1855, shows nonconformists urging its use.) 
Disraeli saw its political importance as early as in 1850 (a letter to 
Lord Stanley. Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Beaconsfield, III. 238). 
It had changed the political complexion of the Birmingham district of 
Warwickshire before the election of 1852 and had influenced Lan- 
cashire, West Riding, East Surrey, and Middlesex. In the last two 
places Conservatives attributed their defeat in 1852 to this cause. 
(Statement in a Conservative paper, the Britannia, August 28, 1852.) 
The movement was denounced in the democratic press as aiming to 
“garrison property” and enforce the idea of property as a qualification 
for the franchise. It “may enfranchise us after many centuries,’ wrote 
the English Republic, p. 65. Also see ibid., p. 179 


? Hansard, CX1V. 864-70. Second reading, CXV. 910-940. 
*G. B. Smith, Life of Bright, London, 1889, pp. 135-6. 











96 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ing just won an important division by a bare fourteen 
votes.1 Hume suggested later that the need of popular 
support thus revealed may have helped Russell to his de- 
cision.” Reform had not been mentioned in the Queen’s 
speech at the beginning of the session.* Later in the ses- 
sion the government was beaten again on Berkeley’s motion 
for the ballot.* Under these circumstances, Russell began 
to approach Bright and the Radicals, even against the 
wishes of Palmerston.® Bright thereupon redoubled his 
efforts to stir up a combined middle- and working-class agi- 
tation, and Cobden now for the first time appears to have 
given his formal adhesion to the Parliamentary and Finan- 
cial Reform Association, on the ground that the question 
was now a practical one. But Cobden was also advising 
Bright to wait until the popular cry forced the issue, remark- 
ing that he did not see “any indication of a breeze in the 
direction of Reform.” It seems that Bright was still hop- 
ing to form a reform organization, distinct from the exist- 
ing one, with the old Anti-Corn Law League as a nucleus. 
Cobden insisted the plan was not feasible, because the Man- 
chesterites would not respond. Sturge apparently was 
simultaneously offering to lead in a manhood-suffrage agita- 
tion, and Edward Miall, of the Nonconformist, was warmly 
advocating the principle, because it alone was compatible 
with human dignity; it alone would break up the solidarity 


*This great debate is in Hansard, CXIV. 374 ff. 
* Ibid., pp. 864-5. 

° Ibid., pp. 2 ff. 

“ Hansard, CXVIII. 356-74. 

° Trevelyan, Bright, p. 196. 


° English Republic, June 22, 1851. Yet he made it clear he approved 
only of a “practical, administrative measure.” (National Parl. & Finan- 
cial Reform Assn. Tracts. Proceedings of the fourth monthly soiree 
of the Association. May 26, 1851). 

* Morley, Cobden, p. 373. 


* Ibid., p. 376. 


| THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 97 
| 
| 


of the working class, which was the result of political 
-exclusion.? 

Thus were all shades of radicalism struggling to find 
their way amid the maze of contradictions, fears, and hopes 
of the time. Chartists were increasingly suspicious of the 
middle-class leaders, and middle-class leaders found it im- 
| possible unreservedly to accept political democracy. The 
‘relations between the two classes in the industrial world 
were without doubt having their reverberations in the politi- 
cal. These were the years of the Wolverhampton Tin-plate 
Workers’ prosecutions and of the great Engineers’ strike and 
lockout. Linton scathingly described the Radicals as “the 
party of financial and parliamentary reformers, the infa- 
-mous-peace party, the free-traders in labour, the mill-owning 
-evaders of the factory-relief bill, the money lords, the com- 
_fortable Atheists on ‘Change.’”2 The journal of William 
Newton of the Amalgamated Engineers expressed its doubt 
of middle-class leadership; instead, “the people must take 
their advocates from their own class. No others can so well 
| understand or express their sympathies or feelings—their 
"wants and necessities—their strength and weakness.”? And 
| again :* the conduct of reformers was “open to grave sus- 
-picion,” and the House of Commons was “a bundle of war- 
'ring negatives.” The Industrial Exhibition had tided them 
over that year, and “national glorification and commercial 
_ ambition have stifled the cries of the people,” but now Rus- 
sell knew only reform could break the parliamentary dead- 
‘lock. Let the people, therefore, it urged, agitate for as 
_much as they could get, especially for payment of members, 
“so that the labourers may send those who really have their 








*A speech of his was published as a pamphlet: The Franchise Con- 
sidered as a means of a People’s Training, London, 1851. 


* The English Republic, p. 110. 
* The Operative, July 12, 1851. 
*Tbid., August 9, 1851. 





ts 





98 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


confidence to parliament”; then they will have the power 
of “providing by law that capital shall be just to labour,” 
by securing certain measures, such as the amendment of the 
Master and Servant Law. ‘And behind these reforms 
greater ones, affecting society as well as politics, rise up 
from the darkness of the future, that future which may be 
the beginning of a bright and glorious end, when those who’ 
make the wealth of the world shall be treated as justly as 
the ox which was not muzzled when treading out the corn.” 
The spirit in trade-unionism is further revealed by the 
fact that the cautious Bookbinders’ Circular broke over its 
habitual reticence on politics to denounce the “cold, calculat- 
ing doctrines of Mr. Hume and the Whigs.” 
With public opinion upon the question of reform in the 
state that has been described and with apparently general 
apathy existing toward the question except among a minority _ 
of the people,? Russell introduced his measure early in 1852. 
The Radicals opposed it unanimously, though some were 
willing to accept it under protest as a step in the right direc- 
tion. Disraeli® did not offer any vigorous opposition, be-— 
cause he saw it did not disturb the balance of interests as” 
established by the act of 1832, precisely the feature of it 
which the Radicals attacked. But the measure never came 
up for an exhaustive debate, because the government was 
beaten almost immediately on its local militia bill and re-— 
signed. Derby became prime minister and announced his” 
program as consisting wholly of legal and social reforms. 
That Russell and the Whigs within the last two or three 
years had been made more sensible of their dependence 


* February, 1851. The reference was not specifically to reform, or 
labor, but to a Contagious Diseases Bill. 

? Admitted by Hume in debate on this bill. (Hansard, CXIX. 268 ff.) 
He said the people were too well employed to be concerned. The bill 
provided for a five pound rating franchise for boroughs as well as in- 
come tax franchise. It repealed property qualification for members. — 
(Ibid., pp. 261-5.) 


*Ibid., pp. 303 ff. 


| 
: THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 99 


pon the Radicals appears in an account of a party confer- 
ence called by Russell soon after the accession of the Con- 
servatives to office, which Derby and Disraeli detailed in 
‘their ministerial statements in parliament. At this confer- 
ence, it was declared, Cobden, Bright, Hume, and Villiers 
had been conspicuous, and Russell had promised that in case 
he were called on again to form a cabinet it would not be 
‘wholly Whig. Disraeli said that the Whigs, the Cobden- 
ites, and the Peelites had formed:a coalition to force a dis- 
solution of parliament.2 Derby, in view of this possibility, 
stated that among the issues upon which the Conservatives 
would appeal to the country would be that they, while in 
office, had exerted themselves ‘‘to stem with some opposition, 
to supply some barrier against the current of that continually 
increasing and encroaching democratic influence in this na- 
‘tion, which is bent on throwing the whole power and auth- 
ority of the government nominally into the hands of the 
‘masses, but practically and really into those of demagogues 
_and republicans.’”* 

| The prospect of an election seemed to offer an oppor- 
tunity to the Parliamentary and Financial Reform Associ- 
ation to widen its influence. It did make the attempt. 
Another conference was held, but the schism between the 
household and manhood suffragists appeared to be deeper 
than before. The Northern Star* declared that working- 
men would never support a movement which did not recog- 
‘nize manhood suffrage, to them “a sacred tradition and inex- 
pugnable portion of their political creed.’”’ Holyoake and 
_Miall plead for unity, but Ernest Jones pronounced the asso- 
‘ciation reactionary. Thomas Frost, present at the confer- 
ence, was convinced that the Radicals only meant to use the 














* Hansard, CX1X. 1010 ff. Derby’s statement. 

? Tbid., p. 1063. 

* Tbid., p. 1013. 

*March 6, 1852. The Star had now passed out of Chartist hands. 








100 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


working classes in order to gain their own objects.1_ On 

of the most persistent working-class advocates of the allian 

represented by the association was Holyoake, who was writ 
ing for it constantly in the Leader,” but he brought down 
upon his head many bitter attacks thereby. Linton dubbed 
him the “touter in ordinary to the Walmsley incapables.”® 
Charles Murray, a social-reform Chartist of the School of 
O’Brien and Ernest Jones, wrote a denunciatory pamphlet* 
accusing him of treason to his class. . 

Plainly, the Parliamentary and Financial Reform Asso- 
ciation was fast approaching dissolution, even though Hume 
was now more active in its behalf than formerly. 

The election of 1852 is notable in the political history of 
English labor chiefly because it was the occasion of the first 
independent labor candidacy—that of William Newton, or- 
ganizer of the most effective trade-union in England, the 
Amalgamated Society of Engineers. The explanation of 
this candidacy lies in the bitter war then being waged, as 
was described in the preceding chapter, between the Engi- 
neers and the Association of Employers of Operative Engi- 
neers, in which the masters were seeking to break the union.® 
The Operative® had threatened political action as soon as 
the dissolution of parliament was rumored, pointing to the 
masters’ efforts to induce the government to take action in 
the strike. ‘We had rather not use the weapon they are 
forcing upon us; but if they will have it so, and that too on 
the eve of a threatened dissolution of parliament, we will 


1 Forty Years’ Recollections, p. 207. 

2J. McCabe, Life and Letters of George Jacob Holyoake, London, 
1908, vol. I, p. 164. 

°Tbid., p. 169. 

‘4 Letter to Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, containing a brief review 
of that Gentleman’s conduct and policy as a Reformer, etc., London, 
1854. (In the Goldsmiths’ Library). 

° See above, pp. 52 ff. 

February 14, 1852. It feared an ex post facto law against trade- 
unions. 


| THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 101 


‘not let another week pass over without pointing to the policy 
which for our own safety we must adopt.” Soon it began 
to develop the idea, still somewhat vague, of a great work- 
ingmen’s party, which it hoped to see emerge from the con- 
ference in London on the engineers’ strike and lockout—“A 
great confederation of all those who sell labour for wages.’’4 
One week later William Newton, editor of the Operative 
‘and organizer of the amalgamation, announced his candi- 
-dacy for Tower Hamlets, the second largest constituency in 
the kingdom.” It contained probably several thousand work- 
ing-class electors.* 

| Newton stood definitely as a labor candidate against 
both the regular parties. This position was made clear in 
his opening address,* in which he stated that he would try 
to make the election turn upon questions of labor. There 
was, he declared, hardly one spokesman for labor in the 
House now, but workingmen were more conscious than 
ever before of their need, their power to elect their own 
members. Middle-class remedies, consisting largely of an 
increase in trade, were inadequate to solve the paramount 
problem of unemployment. Direct legislation to legalize 
cooperative production, amend unjust laws bearing on labor, 
such as the Master and Servant Law, to take care of unem- 
ployment by the use of waste lands and the provision of 
work by the government, to reform the patent laws—these 
measures labor could expect only from a parliament in 
which labor had a voice. As to the political program of the 
address, it was typically Radical, except for its demand for 
manhood suffrage. 











*March 27, 1852. See above, p. 53. 
* The Operative, March 30. 


*Based on an estimate in R. D. Baxter, The New Reform Bill, 
App. III, London, 1866. The number of working-class electors in each 
borough in 1866 is given. 


*The Operative, April 10, 1852. 


102 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


A leading article in the same number of the Operativ 
that carried this address, itself no doubt written by Newto 
argued for direct labor representation, declaring: “There i 
a growing conviction that the rights of labour will never b 
fairly advocated, nor its wrongs unsparingly exposed, till 
man from the ranks of labour . . . catches the eye of 
the Speaker of the House, and in burning words pour 
forth the woes, the sympathies, the aspirations of the toilers.”” 

As the campaign progressed Newton’s speeches were re- 
ported in the Operative. He continued to differentiate hil 
liberal from his strictly labor platform, emphasizing his” 
unique position with regard to the latter and dwelling par- 
ticularly upon the problem of unemployment as the funda- 
mental one, to be solved only by wider use of the land. It 
is possible to discern in Newton’s program his fourfold 
character of Chartist, Christian Socialist, trade-unionist, 
and Liberal. Portions of his demands can be attributed tal 
each source of inspiration. Also, in essentials, his program 
was a prototype of labor’s political program as formulated 
and re-formulated during the next half-century, with its two” 
aspects, the liberal and the labor. The latter portion as- 
sumed various guises at different periods, but in it were 
constantly to be found, with varying emphasis, of course, the 
question of trade-union legislation, the laws of partnership, 
patent laws, unemployment, and government interference in - 
behalf of the weak." . 

In this contest Newton opposed both the sitting members, 
Sir William Clay and George Thompson. His opposition to 
the latter is significant, for labor had had no truer friend than 
he in its political aspirations during the past twenty-five 
years. He advocated all the points of the Charter and sup- 

*This was never wholly absent, even in labor’s most laissez faire 


period. Witness the demand for factory laws, employers’ liability, 
and mines regulations. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 103 


ported them upon every occasion in the House. But he was 
a Radical, had been prominent in the Anti-Corn Law 
League, and no doubt had little eye for the social needs of 
‘the time. Sir William Clay, the other sitting member, was 
a good Radical and supporter of Hume’s reform bill and of 
the Parliamentary and Financial Reform Association. A 
fourth Liberal candidate was C. S. Butler. 

That Newton’s contest was a vigorous one is shown by 
its results. At the hustings he received the largest show of 
hands, and at the subsequent polling received 1095 votes. 
Clay and Butler were elected with 7728 and 7218 votes 
| respectively. 

During the campaign the Operative urged electoral ac- 
tivity on the part of labor all over the country. It advised 
every town and borough to have its operatives’ committee 
of electors and non-electors, to. put forward candidates if 
possible, and, if not, to demand answers on social questions 
_of those who offered themselves.* 

One result of the election was to strengthen the ultra- 
Radical group in parliament. Sir J. Walmsley and W. 
Gardner were elected for Leicester by large majorities over 
Whig opponents, who dubbed them Chartists.2, The min- 
isterialists were also strengthened, but had not a majority of 
the House.? Offers and counter-offers of factional alli- 
ances characterized the political situation during the rest 
of the year. Disraeli tried to strengthen himself by offering 
an alliance to the Manchester School,* which was refused; 








1Ernest Jones contested Halifax. Of the twenty thousand at the 
hustings the vast majority were for Jones. At the polls he received 
only thirty-eight votes (Gammage, op. cit., p. 391). At Nottingham 
the Chartists tried to elect Charles Sturgeon, attorney for the National 
Association of United Trades. (The Age, June 20, 1853). 


* The Age, June 6, 12, 1853. 





1852 


® Their total gain was twenty-two seats (The Britannia, July 31, 


“Trevelyan, Bright, pp. 205 ff. 














104 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


the Peelites, not to be reconciled with Disraeli, definitely 
transferred their support to the Whigs.’ This coalition 
overthrew the Conservative ministry at the end of the year 
and established itself in power under Lord Aberdeen. 
Overtures to the Manchester School were made by the coal- 
ition by offering Bright a place in the cabinet, which he 
would not accept.” 

By this time the Parliamentary and Financial Reform 
Association had well-nigh ceased to function’ The demo- 
cratic Vanguard*® explained its impotence as the result of 
compromise. By trying to make some approach to radical 
reform, it had antagonized the “millocracy,” while, by try- 
ing to conciliate the Manchester School, it had alienated the 
ardent politicians of the working class. ‘Cobden, Bright and 
their confederates do undoubtedly exercise great influence 
with the middle class, and had they joined heartily with 
Walmsley and his friends, there can be no doubt that a vast 
proportion of the middle class . . . would have en- 
listed under the banner of Parliamentary Reform. But a 
veritable, earnest movement for Parliamentary Reform is of 
all agitations the least likely to serve the peculiar ambition 
of the Manchester men; such a movement could not for long 
be sustained on the juste milieu policy. The popular passions 
aroused, and the might of the multitude put forth, the move- 
ment would day by day assume a more Radical or even 
Revolutionary character; and the Manchester liberals, fail- 
ing to advance, would be submerged by the power they had 
evoked.”” The Manchester men aim to undermine the ter- 
ritorial aristocracy and take their power over, but hesitate 
to do it by the aid of a popular movement which might go 
too far. They, therefore, ‘have never been more than luke- 

* Trevelyan, op. cit., p. 208. 


? Tbid., p. 208. 
* Ed. by G. J. Harney, 1853, pp. 26 ff. and p. 61. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 105 


warm and insincere friends of ‘Parliamentary Reform’ and 
now they have inaugurated a new ‘dodge’ to attract popular 
attention and support, with the view of rendering any real 
movement for Parliamentary Reform impossible for at 





least any (sic) time to come.’ They have got up the Peace 
Movement and aim to revive the machinery of the League. 
According to their maxim of one thing at a time, they will 
give this their whole attention. The money lords “instinct- 
ively feel that if the working classes obtained political power 
their supremacy, social as well as political, would be in con- 
tinual and imminent danger.’’ And as for Chartism, it is 
broken and destroyed. “In truth there is not on the soil of 
the country any party or popular organization willing and 
competent to continue the struggle for the triumph of pure, 
unsullied democracy.” 

Another working class weekly! similarly lamented that 
the working classes were “‘dead”’ to political reform, partly 
because times were peaceful and prosperous; but it believed 
that, in spite of apparent indifference, the cause of universal 
suffrage was in a better state than ever before. Much 
thought was going on about it; workingmen had a settled 
conviction that the vote was due them and, though momen- 
tarily deflected from it, would not rest until it was gained. 
A few months later this journal, as if forecasting the future, 
declared that Birmingham, the political teacher of the Mid- 
lands, should take the lead in a great new democratic move- 
ment in opposition to the Manchester traders.? In truth, 
when next the question of radical reform became an issue 
in English politics, it was from Birmingham that the move- 
ment went forth under the leadership of Bright, the rejected 
of Manchester. 


* The Political Examiner, March 2, 30, 1853. 
? Tbid., August 1, 1853. 


106 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND | 
In 1854 Russell was reluctantly permitted by the cabinet 
to bring in another reform bill.1_ But in these months a_ 
new question was developing that was soon to absorb public 
attention practically to the exclusion of all other issues; 
namely, the question of war with Russia. Lord Palmerston, 
the home secretary, was known to be hostile to reform, and 
even some of his colleagues suspected him of raising the war 
cry in order to stifle the demand for it.2 Disraeli said of 
the government at the end of 1853 that its alternative was 
reform or war.? 
Straightway certain Manchester Radicals and noncon- 
formists began to organize an extensive propaganda for 
peace.* One chief argument against war was its expense. 
This agitation by the Manchester leaders went far toward 
alienating from them the support of politically active work- 
ingmen. Some considered it a move to shelve reform; others 
were wholly unsympathetic with pacifism. One of their 
journals exclaimed,® when Bright made a speech disparag- 
ing the Turks: “Verily! friend Bright, thou art an imposter ! 
thy patriotism is a mockery, thy philanthropy a sham, and 
thy orations the disingenuous and venomous outpourings of 
Humbug and Falsehood combined.’ Another,® in giving 
an account of a great peace meeting at Edinburgh at which 


*Even this was due to petitions and public meetings engineered by 
Bright. (See Trevelyan, Bright, pp. 209-12). The vast amount of cor- 
ruption practised in the recent election contributed to the demand for 
reform. See the British Journal, May, 1853; the Northern Tribune, 
p. 33, and the Political Annual and Reformers’ Handbook, London, 
1854, p. 12, for expressions on this matter. 

* Morley, Life of Gladstone, I. 490. 

*Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Beaconsfield, III. 350. 

“Cobden had been interested in an organization to promote peace 
since 1847. Bright and other Radical leaders joined. See J. A. Hob- 
son, Cobden, The International Man, N. Y., 1919, pp. 36, 56-7, and S. 
Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, p. 128, note 1. Also Herald of Peace (organ 
Seas Peace Society), 1850-3, and Peace Advocate and Correspondent, 

i. 
ere Beacon, a Journal of Politics and Literature, November 23, 

®° The British Journal, November, 1853. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 107 


were present Cobden, Bright, Miall, and Sturge, declared 
that Cobden here “struggled harder to pull down his repu- 
tation than he ever did to build it.” The English Republic 
vehemently approved of war with Russia.1 Meetings were 
held in the metropolis in favor of war,” and in October a 
Conservative journal asserted that Aberdeen had been hissed 
as a coward in every public meeting in the provinces.? 
The Fraternal Democrats pronounced the hesitant policy of 
the government to be due to their purpose “to uphold aris- 
tocratic domination and suppress the rising influence of 
democracy.”* The Beacon called on the people to demand 
war in order to give Italy, Poland, and Hungary a chance to 
break their fetters.» It denounced the mill-owning paci- 
fists who at that very moment were in Preston waging a 
life and death struggle with the workingmen of Lancashire, 
even while professing peace and liberalism—‘“tyrants as 
rapacious as Nicholas, and a thousandfold more hypocrit- 
ical.” Secret diplomacy it condemned and demanded, on this 
additional ground, that the House of Commons be made rep- 
resentative of the people.® 

In this fashion did Manchester internationalism, based 
upon free trade and peace, clash with working-class interna- 
tionalism, inspired by a democratic sympathy with all 
peoples who were denied political liberty by aristocratic 
governments. 

The peace party could not carry with them even the 


: majority of their middle-class allies. Cobden saw the dis- 


| 


ruptive influence of this fact upon his and Bright’s project 


of effecting financial reform through a reform of parlia- 


* November 19, 1853. 

? British Journal, November, 1853. 

* The Britannia, October 8, 1853. 

*In an address published in the British Journal, November, 1853. 
* November 16, 1853. 

® November 23, 1853. 


108 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ment. He wrote Bright in November that now the Radicals 
had no good argument for reform, since they were as much 
in favor of war and war expenditures as the aristocracy.* 

And so the attempt that had been persisted in since 1848, 
sometimes half-heartedly, sometimes earnestly, to create a 
great people’s party which should include the body of the 
working and middle classes, again proved futile. The views 
of the two industrial groups were still antagonistic, their 
interests as capital and labor were still unreconciled. Sus- 
picion bred of a consciousness of diverse philosophy and 
diverse objectives entered into every proposal for political 
cooperation. Better economic conditions deprived the 
masses of the one effective stimulant to agitation and left 
the political movement largely in the hands of the more in- 
tellectual elements among the working classes, who would 
be most conscious of this fundamental divergence of views. 
Employers’ opposition to an extension of factory legislation 
and to trade-union action reacted upon the political situation 
in a powerful way. It is no wonder that many workingmen 
derisively called the whole Manchester group “Cobden & 
Co.,”” when Cobden was hostile enough to trade-unions to 
write as he did in 1856: 


So far as the wages question goes, I think the only sound and 
honest course is to tell the people plainly that they are under a delu- 
sion as to their assumed power to regulate or permanently influence 
in the slightest degree by coercion the rate of wages. They might as 
well attempt to regulate the tides by force, or change the course of 
the seasons, or subvert any of the other laws of nature—for the 
wages of labour depend upon laws as unerring and as much above 
our coercive power as any other operations of nature. There is a 
desperate spirit of monopoly and tyranny at the bottom of all these 
trade unions.”? 


* Morley, Cobden, p. 408. 

?J. A. Hobson, Cobden, the International Man, p. 166, in a letter 
to H. Richard urging the Morning Star to undertake the mission of 
teaching the people that the middle-class Radicals were their friends. 


THE REFORM ASSOCIATION 109 


The whole question of political reform was soon 
swamped in the excitement of the Crimean War. The 
working classes considered this war as in a large measure 
their own. They forgot their own political exclusion for a 
time in their all-absorbing interest in the struggle against 
Russia, to them the symbol of all oppression. Or perhaps 
they sensed the impetus their own cause would receive 
through the triumph of liberty abroad. When next the 
question of reform came into the forefront of English poli- 
tics, it persisted until it received a fairly satisfactory 
solution. 


CHAPTER 1% 


REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION AFTER THE 
CRIMEAN WAR 


The Crimean War, arousing as it did the generous sym- 
pathy of the working classes, who saw in it a means of 
advancing the cause of liberty, and the opposition of the 
Manchester party and their Peace Society had served to 
erect another barrier between these two groups. In 1855 
the final dissolution of the Parliamentary and Financial Re- 
form Association, whose object had been to cement a 
political alliance between them, was officially announced.* 
The war had for a time driven into the background all do- 
mestic questions. It had, however, furnished certain new 
arguments for reform, since it had cast discredit upon 
aristocratic government. Trevelyan estimates its influence 
thus: “The actual revival of democracy under Bright’s 
leadership from 1858 onwards, culminating in the trium- 
phant winning of the Franchise in 1867, was in no small 
measure due to the proved incompetence of the aristocrats, 
even at their own game of war.’ A further effect of the 
war that had political bearings was the rise in the price of 
food which it occasioned, entailing wide-spread distress 
among the lower orders of society.2 Ernest Jones found 
occasion once more to preach his land gospel to ready 
listeners.* 


*In the Political Annual and Reformer’s Handbook for 1856, p. 12. 

? Life of Bright, p. 236. 

* By 1855 the price of wheat was ten shillings higher per quarter than 
the highest price in the years just preceding the repeal of the Corn 
Laws. (Tables in Levi, Annals of British Legislation, 1856, I. 29.) 
Bread riots were common occurrences. Pauperism in the large towns 
increased greatly. See Journal of Progress, August, 1854, and Levi, 
op. cit., pp. 17-29. 

“Lectures published in Evenings with the People, 1856. 





REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION = 111 


: The conclusion of peace in 1856 made it possible for 
_domestic questions again to assert themselves. It is true 
that the year 1857 was comparatively uneventful in the 
_more obvious developments of English domestic politics. 
The single exception was the spectacular fall and reinstate- 
_ ment of Palmerston, and even this was occasioned more by 
| foreign policy than domestic. But a study of the under- 
currents of political life in this year reveals an advance in 
_all the related political issues that centered around the pivotal 
| question of enfranchising the working classes. The earlier ex- 
_ periment of an organized party composed of the middle and 
working classes had followed its tortuous course amid the 
obstructions offered by conflicting class interests, Chartist 
intransigence, Radical incoherence and uncertainty. It 
would have failed had there been no war. The war swept 
the stage clean of those first futilities. The task of evolving 
more effective policies concerning the problem of democracy 
faced all classes. From this year until 1867 the question 
presents a continuous development. It underwent, however, 
vicissitudes that are most instructive as to the cross-currents 
in the politics of the period. 

One very significant feature of the decade is the increas- 
ing prominence of workingmen, even though unenfranchised, 
in political activities, both local and national. And these 
activities partook of a new character ; they were not generally 
Chartist in method, but had more the nature of a considered 
attempt to constitute an extreme left wing of Liberalism. 
They were intelligent, perhaps opportunist, and certainly 
effective to the extent of sharpening the issue of reform. 
They increased the weight of labor in the Radical-Labor 
partnership, a renewal of which, after its first failure, was 
inevitably demanded by the fact that none of the fiscal and 
political reforms sought had been effected. England was 
still ruled by Whig or Tory aristocrats; indirect taxation 














112 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


= net 


still weighed heavily on industry, while the land remained 


exempt from bearing its due burden; extravagant expendi- 


ture still marked the national finances ; religious equality was 
still to be won; Manchester did not yet prevail over Calne 
and Droitwich. 

In the background of this renewal under changed con- 
ditions of the attempt to ally the middle and working classes 
hovered still the fears and suspicions engendered by differ- 
ing theories and aims.‘ Chartism as a class war had dis- 
appeared, but Chartist aims could be discerned by the 
apprehensive manufacturer behind the political demands of 
workingmen. The class war continued in the industrial field 
unabated, and the hope of identifying the economic interests 
of the two industrial groups, which was ever a prerequisite 
to political alliance for democracy, appeared only less futile 
than a decade earlier. The middle classes, as a whole, there- 
fore, hesitated to admit workingmen into the enfranchised 
citizenship, while the Radical wing of the middle classes 
found their needs and their fears of the working classes 
running counter to each other. The fact that the former 
proved stronger than the latter is responsible for their con- 
tinued efforts to create and guide a reform agitation in and 
after 1857. And this fact, coupled with two others, is re- 
sponsible for the Act of 1867. The other two facts were 
the constantly increasing importance of the working classes 
politically and socially, which rendered it hazardous to deny 
them the suffrage; and the evolution of the parliamentary 
situation to the point where Conservatives and Liberals alike 
had to yield to the combined pressure of the Radicals led by 
Bright and the working classes demanding the vote. Enter- 
ing into every changed aspect of the question was the bal- 
ancing of fear against necessity. The year 1857, therefore, 


*See next chapter. 














REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION 113 


initiated what may be called the final stage in the question 
of enfranchising the working classes. 


The scattered evidence that can be obtained of the inter- 


_ est of the working classses in politics in this year possesses 


great interest. Their activities appear chiefly in connection 


with the election. Palmerston had been defeated in the 
_ House upon Cobden’s motion condemning the government 
_ for upholding the violent policy of the British plenipotentiary 
| at Hong-Kong. Against him was formed a coalition of 


Radicals, Peelites (including Gladstone), Lord John Rus- 
sell, Disraeli, and the Conservatives. Palmerston appealed 
to the country. 

The chief issue in the election was Palmerston’s foreign 


| policy. But it was not the only issue. Another in many 


boroughs was parliamentary reform, an issue not pressed 
upon the constituencies by candidates as much as upon can- 
didates by the Radicals and the unenfranchised in the 
constituencies. 

It was unavoidable that this issue should be raised. 
Ever since Russell’s abjuration of finality in 1848, it had 
been universally understood that some amendment of the 
Act of 1832 would soon be made. There had been much 
talk about the proposal in and out of parliament; there had 
been associations formed to promote it; there had been two 
government bills to effect it. Very likely no great amount of 
sincerity had been felt on any of these points by the ruling 
classes. Nor had there been vigorous agitation among the 
unenfranchised, due perhaps to the following reasons: it was 
a time of ebb in political excitement after the high tide of 
Chartist endeavor, and it was also a period of slowly increas- 
ing prosperity. Those of the unenfranchised who did not 
relax their political interest were restrained from immoder- 
ate activity by two convictions: first, that reform, having 
been conceded by all classes as necessary, would be a cer- 


114 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


tainty in the near future, and, in the second place, that when 
it came it would inevitably be a middle-class, not a working- 
class, measure. This latter conviction was developed in the 
course of the prolonged negotiations with the Radicals in 
the five years after 1848 and fixed by the limited nature of 
the government bills of 1852 and 1854. The question had 
been denuded of the features that gave it a democratic ap- 
peal, such as natural rights and universal suffrage which 
alone was capable of effecting the changes in the existing 
order desired by workingmen. The issue had become a 
matter of practical bourgeois policy. It was understood 
that the reason for its consideration at all was to increase 
middle-class power in the government. Confessedly these 
advocates of reform wished to exclude great numbers of 
the working classes. Other reasons for the lapsing of agi- 
tation were foreign politics and the growing absorption of 
the upper grades of workmen in trade-unionism and co- 
operation. 

But the question could not rest at that point, since it had 
by this time a fixed status in the political schedule. This 
fact had several consequences. As we have noted, it tended 
to deter agitation, which obstinate opposition would have 
engendered. The question was thus likely to become for a 
time a parliamentary annual, which everybody discussed and 
nobody acted upon. The time would come at last, however, 
when promises would have to become deeds. The lifeless 
question, bandied about and tossed from party to party like 
a ball in play, would become insensibly charged with a dyna- 
mic force capable of shattering the hands that trifled with it. 
The source of this latent energy in the question was the con- 
stantly increasing importance of the great class concerned. 
The Radicals in parliament, daring to evoke this energy 
because of their necessity, became the masters of the parlia- 
mentary situation. The minority in the House, resting upon 


REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION = 115 


a great democratic support, finally worked their will upon 
the majority, and reform became a fact. This event began 
to be foreshadowed in 1857. 

As has been stated, the working classes were not a neg- 








ligible quantity in the election of that year. In fact, it was 
then that non-electors began definitely and deliberately to 
take part in Liberal electoral matters, with the result that the 
question of the franchise was forced more into the open. 
Reform was certainly a hustings question in this election. 
Candidates were frequently compelled to declare themselves. 
In several instances a cleavage over the question appeared 
among the Liberals, one group allying with the non-electors 
against the other more conservative group—a forecast of 
‘the coming rapprochement of the conservative Liberals 
with the Conservative party, and the closer affiliation of the 
‘more democratic faction with the masses. 

___ The most spectacular feature of the election of 1857 was 
the defeat of the anti-Palmerstonian pacifists. At Man- 
chester, Bright and Gibson were beaten. These two defeats 
are usually explained wholly upon the ground of opposition 
to the peace policy of these eminent leaders of the Man- 
chester School. There is evidence, however, of another in- 
fluence at work; namely, a determined opposition on the part 
of a Liberal section to the remnants of the Anti-Corn Law 
League, who were charged with trying still to dominate 
Lancashire Liberal politics. Bright wrote to his brother 
after the election that the leaders of the opposition were not 
moved by the peace question, for they had been just as bitter 
in 1852, or even in 1847, when his merit or demerit lay in 
his free-trade policy. On both those occasions they had 
coalesced with the Conservatives.’ An illuminating pamph- 














*W. N. Molesworth, History of England, 1830 to 1874, London, 
1886, III. 90. In a letter to Cobden, quoted in Morley’s Life of Cobden, 
p. 440, Bright stressed the peace question, however. 





116 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


let was published at Manchester at the time of the election of 
1857 with the title, Why the Liberals are Leaving the 
League.1 It declared that a divergence between the Anti- 
Corn Law League and other Liberals had been gradually tak- 
ing place since 1852. This dissension had been augmented 
certainly by the peace issue, but was due also to local con- 
siderations, which explained the withdrawal of so many Lib- 
erals from Bright and Gibson. The free-trade organization 
should have ceased when its purpose was accomplished ; 
instead, “By means of it, a small clique proposes to hold 
this city and some of the neighboring boroughs in their 
hands. . . . This degradation were of itself sufficient to 
stir up the blood of any body of independent men.” The 
Leeds Mercury, closely following the contest, declared that 
huge sums were subscribed to elect Sir John Potter and 
Robert Lowe. A deputation to Lowe told him sixteen 
thousand pounds had already been subscribed to fight the 
League.” This support was transferred to J. A. Turner 
when Lowe declined to stand. The Mercury later attributed 
the defeat of Bright and Gibson wholly to a revolt from the 
League, and it saw as a factor in this revolt the growing 
alienation of the conservative from the advanced forces in 
Liberalism. 


It should be remembered that both at Manchester and Salford [a 
borough near by] there are many electors whose Liberalism is of a 
somewhat antique cast, and who, although they have no love for 
Toryism, by no means go so far as the advanced party whose organ 
is the League. . . . The Conservative party, too, although weak 
relatively to Reformers, is absolutely strong, and its weight seems 
to have been thrown into the scale in favor of Potter and Turner, 
who approximate much more nearly to its views than do Milner 
Gibson and Bright.? 


*Why the Liberals are Leaving the League: A Letter addressed to 
Sir Benjamin Heywood, Bart . . . and Samuel Fletcher, Esq., by a 
Manchester Liberal. No date, but clearly of 1857. 


? March 24, 1857. 
® Leeds Mercury, March 31, 1857. 





REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION © 117 


It is a legitimate speculation, in the absence of positive 
evidence, that the Radical friendliness to democratic reform 
was a large element in the wide-spread opposition to the 


- Manchester School. Such was apparent enough in the elec- 


tion two years later, when the non-electors put out a candi- 
date of their own with whom it was feared the Radicals 
would coalesce. Liberals and Conservatives united against 
this contingency. That in 1857 the non-electors must have 
given their support to Bright in spite of his stand on the 
war is indicated by the fact that he received a majority in 
the show of hands at the hustings.2 In two other cases 
where men of the peace party, but who were also outstand- 
ing advocates of reform, went down, the show of hands was 
in their favor; at Huddersfield, where Cobden was defeated, 
and at Rochdale, where Edward Miall, editor of the Non- 
Conformist and earnest advocate of democracy, failed of 
election.* 

A pamphlet written in 1857 by Charles Sturgeon,* at- 
torney for the Association of United Trades and a friend of 
Chartism and social reform, suggests another cross-current 
in this election. It expressed the belief that one reason so 
many of the Manchester School went down was their atti- 
tude on labor legislation. The evidence substantiating this 
view in the case of one defeat of a free trader is strong. 
At Oldham W. J. Fox was beaten in spite of his known 
democratic beliefs. It will be recalled that he had been an 
orator for the Anti-Corn Law League and was a prominent 
Dissenting minister. In 1847 a large Liberal faction, no 


*See below, p. 183. 

? The British Standard, April 3, 1857. 

* Tbid., April 3, 1857. 

*C. Sturgeon, A Letter to John Bright . . . with notes on the 
first list of friends of the Working Classes, published after the coup 
detat they made upon the Manchester Radicals, London, 1868. He 
listed twenty-seven defeats in 1857 so explained. This pamphlet was a 
reproduction of one written in 1857. 


118 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


doubt free traders, had brought Fox forward for Oldham 
to oppose the son-in-law of John Fielden, then Liberal mem- 
ber for the borough and the leader in the agitation for the 
Ten Hour Law. The operatives of Oldham supported Cob- 
bett (the Fielden candidate) unwaveringly, and his defeat, 
said a contemporary, made them “morose, sulky, and vin- 
dictive.”’ Fox had been in danger of his life from them. 
In the campaign of 1852 the non-electors steadily voted no 
confidence in Fox in spite of his democratic political views 
and votes. Amid vast excitement, he was defeated by Cob- 
bett, who was a Conservative in politics. Fox’s biographer 
states that henceforth the operatives abandoned their tradi- 
tions, while the mill-owners and tradesmen formed the new 
Liberal party. Fox was soon elected at a bye-election in the 
midst of incredible rioting. It is safe to assume that this 
violent partisanship had not disappeared by 1857; it probably 
contributed to Fox’s defeat at that time.” 

In the contest at Leeds the difficulty of holding the Lib- 
eral sections together and the influence of the non-electors 
upon the situation were unmistakable. The action of the 
Liberal machine was repudiated by those whom the Leeds 
Mercury described as “extreme Radicals.”” They chose W. 
E. Forster as their candidate. He declared in his address 
that he stood distinctly as the non-electors’ candidate.* 
He promised, if elected, to give a yearly accounting to his 
constituents and, if they disapproved of his policies seriously, 
to consider resigning. The increasing tendency under demo- 
cratic pressure for members for large boroughs to consider 


* An account of these events is in Garnett, Life of Fox, pp. 289-294. 

7A meeting of workingmen in London held after the election 
to express sympathy with Bright, Cobden, and Gibson, revealed this 
same cross-current in working-class politics. An amendment was 
offered that their defeat was a just retribution for their opposition to 
measures for the social benefit of the people, such as the Ten Hour 
Law. The amendment and the original resolution were reported as 
receiving about an equal vote (the British Standard, April 24, 1857). 

* Leeds Mercury, March 10, 12, 1857. 


REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION _ 119 


| themselves as delegates is one significant feature of this 

whole period. The Liberal organization refused to accept 
Forster and eventually engineered his withdrawal in favor 

of one who advocated only a five-pound franchise.1 The 

result was the election of a Conservative. This Liberal mis- 
hap was explained by the Mercury? as due to the abstention 
of many Radicals and workingmen or their casting a Con- 
servative vote because of their disaffection. The Liberal 
_ schism in Leeds persisted. 

In Newcastle a similar situation developed. Democracy 
was strong here, and class feeling prevailed widely because 
of this political antagonism as well as because the employers 
_were believed to be particularly indifferent to the welfare of 
their men.? The largest groups of workers were those in 
the iron trades and the coal mines. About one half of the 
population of the town were pitmen. A bitter local strife 
was going on in 1857 between the Whigs supported by the 
numerous old freemen electors and an advanced faction 
calling itself the Rate-payers’ Association.* It was in reality 
the beginning of a determined effort to democratize the bor- 
ough. Many workingmen belonged to the Rate-payers’ 
Association. This group refused to cooperate with the Lib- 
eral organization to support the sitting members and brought 
in a stranger only a week before the election.® His meet- 
ings were attended chiefly by workingmen. His platform 
demanded a wide extension of the suffrage with the ultimate 
aim of universal suffrage. At one stormy meeting the line 
was drawn clearly between workingmen and others, when 





* Ibid., March 14, 1857. 

* Tbid., March 31, 1857. 

* The Northern Tribune, 1854, p. 61. 

*The question involved was the use of certain hospital funds, which 
it was demanded should be used for the good of all, regardless of class 
or creed. See Newcastle Daily Chronicle, September 11, 1857. 

° British Standard, April 3, 1857. 

°The Newcastle Messenger and Advertiser, March 24, 26, 1857. 


120 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


the workingmen carried their resolution of support for their 
candidate, even against one calling for manhood suffrage, 
but opposing the candidate.’ At the hustings, with fifteen 
thousand present, the show of hands was for the popular 
candidate; the polling placed him at the bottom of the list. 
But he received 1672 votes, of which a thousand were 
plumpers,” which indicates the zeal of his supporters. The 
Liberal feud continued until 1865, when the extreme party 
won an overwhelming and lasting victory. 

Another contest that possesses particular interest is that 
at Kidderminster, a carpet-weaving town which had been 
much affected by the hard times of the war period. Robert 
Lowe, its Liberal member, was opposed by William Boycott, 
a Conservative. On election day, the moment the mills 
closed a crowd of several thousand operatives gathered at the 
polling booths and began to attack Lowe’s supporters with 
hisses and blows. When he was declared elected, a furious 
riot broke out in which Lowe himself was wounded, and 
which had finally to be put down by the military from Bir- 
mingham.*? The Liberal press explained the fierce Conser- 
vative sympathies of the operatives by stating that Boycott 
had steadily catered to them by denouncing the manufactur- 
ers of the town, especially those who introduced steam power, 
as tyrants and oppressors, and by favoring strikes. Here 
can be discerned the political significance of the social dis- 
tress caused by the introduction of machinery into a hand- 
loom district. The Conservatives could use it as a weapon 
against the manufacturers. 

An election that revealed other cross-currents in demo- 
cratic politics was that at Leicester. Sir Joshua Walmsley, 


* Newcastle Daily Chronicle, March 27. 

2 British Standard, April 3, 1857. The next highest vote was 2,133. 
* Account in British Standard, April 3, 1857. 

‘Ibid., April 9; Leeds Mercury, April 2; Bell’s News, April 5. 


REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION 121 


president of the Parliamentary and Financial Reform Asso- 
ciation, had been elected here in 1852 despite a Whig-Con- 
_servative coalition.1 The Liberal schism continued to 1857, 
when the same coalition succeeded in defeating Walmsley, 








_ because of the entrance of another factor. He was president 
_now of the National Sunday League,” a body almost totally 
composed of workingmen, whose purpose was to effect the 
opening of museums and art galleries on Sundays. Because 
of this, many nonconformist supporters of Walmsley de- 
serted him in this election.* Thus, as social questions were 
placing obstructions in the way of cohesion between the 
democracy and middle-class Radicals, so did this question 
hinder cooperation between the democracy and the noncon- 
formists. The Sunday question played a large part in sev- 
eral borough elections. 

At Bradford the extreme section brought forward Col- 
onel T. P. Thompson, a tried friend of the Chartists in the 
House, against the candidate chosen by the Liberal party. 
When the latter withdrew from the contest, the Liberals 
transferred their support to a Conservative.* Thompson 
was questioned in his meetings as to his support of such 
labor legislation as an extension of the Ten Hour Law. His 
replies expressed a belief in free contract for labor.? This 


* Leeds Mercury, March 10, 1857. 

? British Standard, March 20, and April 3, 1857. 

*In 1855 the Sabbatarians had attempted to get legislation enacted 
to prohibit Sunday trading and the running of trains and steamboats on 
Sunday and to close all places of refreshment. The working classes 
of the metropolis were indignant. The result of the excitement was 
three Sunday riots in Hyde Park, which forced the withdrawal of the 
bill and set the precedent for the use of Hyde Park as a forum for 
the masses (Frost, Thirty Years’ Recollections, pp. 257-262). They 
also brought Charles Bradlaugh to the front as a democratic champion. 
A few weeks later a body of workingmen formed the National Sunday 
League, with Walmsley as president (Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, 
September 14, 1855). 

* Leeds Mercury, March 10. 

° Tbid., March 19. 







122 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


election saw the last political stand of Ernest Jones as a 
Chartist.1 Toward the close of the year he began an effort 
to effect a political union of classes, which meant an aban 
donment of his tenacious class-war policy. 

One index of the tendency of working-class opinion is 
the vote by show of hands at nominations, when non-electors 
as well as electors could participate. In a number of cases 
the candidate who won by show of hands lost at the polls. 
An examination of the programs of these candidates some- 
times throws light upon the divergence of working-class 
opinion from that of the ten-pound electorate. Several sig- 
nificant instances of this have already been noted, as at Man- 
chester, Huddersfield, Kidderminster, and Newcastle. At 
Sunderland, the largest shipbuilding center in Great Britain, 
where the shipwrights had just organized in a strong union, 
an attempt was made to break the grip of the Shipowners’ 
Society upon the parliamentary representation.2 An ex- 
treme Liberal was put out against the candidate of that 
interest. Much excitement was created, and at the crowded 
hustings the extremist received the show of hands. He was at 
the bottom of the poll. The division created here lasted for 
a decade. Other instances of the defeat of popular candi- 
dates who appealed to workingmen in some special way, 
either by declaring for a very wide franchise or for social 
legislation, and who received overwhelming majorities by 
show of hands, were at Hull,t Southampton,® and New- 


*He stood for Nottingham, O’Connor’s old constituency, and re- 
ceived a great majority of the show of hands, though only 607 votes 
(Leeds Mercury, March 28, and British Standard, March 27, and 
April 3). 

* Newcastle Messenger and Advertiser, January 20, 1857; Leeds 
Mercury, March 17. 

* Newcastle Daily Chronicle, April 3, 1857. 

* Leeds Mercury, March 28. 

° This was a bye-election a month before the general one. (British 
Banner, February 12; Newcastle Daily Chronicle, February 13.) 





REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION = 123 


port (Isle of Wight).* In each case a Liberal split was the 
actual or threatened result. The exact nature of the testi- 
mony afforded in this way is hard to determine. Lord 
Brougham brought the question up in the House of Lords 


soon after this election and declared that, when the majority 


by show of hands was in the minority at the polls, it was a 
majority made up of the lower orders of workingmen, 
such as day laborers.2, But if upper workingmen came 
out at all, as assuredly they did in hotly contested elections, it 


is probable that they voted with their fellows, except perhaps 
_ occasionally, when the latter voted Conservative. The evi- 
_ dence of the vote by show of hands reveals a considerable 
amount of Conservative sympathy among non-electors. At 


least one Conservative candidate received the show of hands 
in 1857 at Leeds, Carlisle, Bolton, Bury, Liverpool, Salford, 
Kidderminster, Macclesfield, Stockport, Stoke-on-Trent, and 
Wigan. 

Thus far nothing has been said about the metropolis. 
The contests there developed some interesting features in the 
way of working-class participation. The most notable in- 
stance was that of Greenwich, where what can legitimately 
be called a local labor party sprang into existence and actu- 


ally for a short time controlled the parliamentary representa- 


tion. Within the borough were located the government 
arsenal and dockyards, employing thousands of workmen. 
The government influence in the borough was consequently 
so strong that it usually determined elections through intimi- 
dation of voters.* Early in 1857 there was a bye-election 
in which the government candidate was General Sir W. J. 
Codrington. The workers in the arsenal and dockyards and 


* British Banner, February 5, 12. This was also a bye-election. 
” Hansard, CKXXXVII. 910. He was arguing that a six-pound fran- 
chise would not alter the representation. 
_* Christian Weekly News, January 13, 1857. Also Borough of Green- 
wich Free Press, January 3, 1857. 


124 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


small tradesmen decided to make a fight for their electoral 
freedom by demanding a wide extension of the franchise 
and above all the ballot. They organized the “Greenwich 
Liberal Association.”’* It held public meetings, interrupted 
those of Codrington, carried votes of no confidence against 
him, and placarded the borough with attacks on him. The 
reports state that at these meetings hundreds of operatives 
were present.” Then the association chose a candidate of 
its own, Colonel B. W. A. Sleigh, one of the proprietors of 
the newly established radical Daily Telegraph, who declared 
his belief in manhood suffrage, the ballot, and a single tax 
on land.* Sleigh was denounced by a local Codrington 
paper as ‘‘a Radical and Chartist.”* Soon cries were heard 
of the danger of “dividing the Liberal interest.”®> The 
entire press of the metropolis was against Sleigh. When 
the nomination took place, the show of hands was in his 
favor, and on polling day his partisans made great demon- 
strations, but he received only 1577 votes to 2913 for his 
opponent. 

Within a month after this bye-election the general elec- 
tion came on. At once the Greenwich Liberal Association 
was in action. One John Townshend, an auctioneer who 
had been a leading supporter of Sleigh, was chosen as its 
candidate upon the platform of the ballot and approximately 
universal suffrage. His candidature was denounced as 
embodying Toryism, radicalism, Chartism, ‘‘and all the other 

* Borough of Greenwich Free Press, August 1, 1857. 

* British Standard, January 16, 1857; Borough of Greenwich Free 
Press, January 3, 14, 1857. 

* Bell’s News, January 31; Borough of Greenwich Free Press, Sep- 
tember 5, 1857; Newcastle Daily Chronicle, February 13, 1857. 

* Borough of Greenwich Free Press, January 17, 1857. 

°Tbid., January 17. Editorial. 

* Ibid., January 24, 

* Tbid., February 14. An action for debt was begun against Sleigh 


during the campaign. It was attributed to government machinations. 
* Ibid., March 21. 


REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION- 125 


isms.” His opponent was Montagu Chambers, the sitting 
member, in whose favor it was urged that he had voted for 
_many bills in the interest of labor, especially the Ten Hour 
_ Act. The “National Association of Organized Trades” sent 
_ out a circular to this effect. But the workingmen continued 
their campaign for Townshend, nevertheless, with such suc- 
cess that, to the surprise and disgust of the metropolis, he 
_ was elected.” 

The triumph of the workingmen was shortlived. Before 
six months were out Townshend, like Sleigh before him, 
was in the bankruptcy court. His working-class supporters 
did not desert him, for they believed his difficulties resulted 
largely from his championship of their cause, especially from 
his campaign expenses.* When his seat was threatened be- 
cause of a lack of the property qualification, the Association 
appointed a committee to raise funds to assist him in fighting 
for it.* Enthusiastic meetings were held for this purpose.® 
The whole affair was ridiculed in the respectable press.® 
Finally his supporters planned to pay him a salary, and by 
the end of the year it was announced that all obstacles to 
his keeping his seat had been removed by their exertions.” 

The end of the episode came toward the middle of the 
next year, when Townshend was declared bankrupt and his 
seat vacant. The London correspondent of the Newcastle 
Daily Chromcle wrote that feeling was so intense among 














workingmen he believed that had it not been for the property 


* Borough of Greenwich Free Press, March 28. 

? Borough of Greenwich Free Press, April 4. One measure he had 
advocated was the placing of all taxes on the rich (British Standard, 
April 3, 1857). 

*Tbid., September 5, 1857. Also the London letter in the Newcastle 
Daily Chronicle, August 27, 1858. 

* Borough of Greenwich Free Press, September 12, 1857. 

® Ibid., September 19. Also South London News, October 10, 1857. 


*Punch and the Standard quoted in Borough of Greenwich Free 
Press, October 24. 


"The Pancras Reporter, November 21, 1857. 


126 - LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


qualification they would have put forward a workingman 
for the seat and would have supported him while in parlia- 
ment.! This sporadic effort at political self-assertion ended 
thus in futility. Nevertheless, it can be safely assumed that 
it had its part in emphasizing the increasing significance of 
the working-class factor in the general political situation. 
Another noteworthy metropolitan contest was that for 
Tower Hamlets, where George Jacob Holyoake, ex-Chartist, 
promoter of cooperation and secularism, and a foremost 
advocate of a Liberal-Labor alliance—altogether one of the 
most able and constructive of working-class leaders in the 
third quarter of the century—stood as a Liberal-Labor can- 
didate. In giving an account of this candidacy in 1868, 
when trying to repeat it at Birmingham, Holyoake said that 
in 1857 the idea of labor representation was scarcely con- 
ceivable.2 He was evidently referring to upper-class opin- 
ion; he went on to say that John Stuart Mill was the first 
distinguished person to approve of the idea, having sent him 
a contribution to his election expenses. His platform? was 
chiefly Radical: residential manhood suffrage, the ballot, tri- 
ennial parliaments, equal electoral districts, the abolition of 
Church rates. Its only distinctive features were its proposal 
to use waste lands in order to extinguish pauperism; security 
to married women’s property; and the opening of museums 
on Sundays. His biographer states that his chief object was 
to work for the substitution of affirmation for the oath.* 
The fact is that, in spite of Holyoake’s later protestations, 
this candidature was preéminently a Radical and not a labor 
candidature. As he himself stated, it was directed against a 

* August 27, 1858. 

? “Working-Class Representation. Its Conditions and Consequences.” 
An address to the Electors of Birmingham, October 16, 1868, by G. Pee 
Holyoake, London, 1868. 

® Ibid. Reviews the earlier campaign. 


*McCabe, Life and Letters of G. J. Holyoake, I. 283. Also G. J. 
Holyoake, Deliberate Liberalism, London, 1886 (a pamphlet). 


REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION 127 


| “stationary Liberal,” Sir William Clay; consequently when 
|“a more robust Radical” appeared in the person of A. S. 
Ayrton, he withdrew.’ Certainly Holyoake’s later assertion 
that this was the first claim ever made to represent Labor in 
Parliament is not justified.” Such a claim was much more 
distinctly asserted by William Newton in 1852. He was 
directly connected with the most important trade-union of 
the day; he stood against both regular parties; he definitely 
_ tried to make the election turn on labor, as distinct from Lib- 
eral, issues; and he actually went to the poll, receiving a 
_ very respectable vote.* 
Other populous metropolitan constituencies revealed in 
this election the influence of labor or of democracy. At 
Lambeth the largest vote polled in the whole election was 
given to William Roupell, who advocated a residential suf- 
frage, the ballot, educational reform, and the social advance- 
ment of the working classes through such means as a shorten- 
_ing of the hours of labor and abolition of the truck system.* 
His opponent’s defeat was attributed by a local paper to his 
having antagonized the working classes by advocating the 
truck system, opposing the shortening of hours, and the re- 
mission of the income tax upon small incomes.® Extreme 
Liberals were elected in Southwark and Finsbury. All the 
Liberal candidates, in their official advertisements, pro- 
nounced for an extension of the franchise. 
That the public considered reform to be an issue is proved 
by comments made during and after the election. The 








7From a pamphlet, G. J. Holyoake to W. H. Brown, London and 
Leicester, no date. 

? Holyoake, Sixty Years of an Agitator’s Life, Il. 42. 
7A. W. Humphrey in A History of Labour Representation, pp. 2-7, 
accepts Holyoake’s as a labor candidacy, asserting that Mill instigated 
it. The latter claim is not ever stated by Holyoake himself. For 
Newton’s candidacy in 1852, see above, pp. 100 ff. 

* South London News, March 14, 21; April 4, 1857. 

° Ibid., April 4. 





128 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


South London News, exulting in the defeat of Quakerism 
and the Peace Society, exclaimed: “Let Palmerston bring in 
a noble measure of Reform and he will be able to defy any 
coalition so long as he lives.”* A nonconformist paper re- 
marked, “Now we shall see if Palmerston is really a Liberal 
by his attitude toward reform.”* The Leeds Mercury 
wrote:? “The growing feeling in favour of Parliamentary - 
Reform, which was checked by the war, has manifested itself 
in the most unmistakable form during the course of the last 
month,” and Palmerston would not be allowed to sleep on 
his laurels. The Pancras Reporter caustically remarked as to 
Palmerston’s reform projects, “blessed is the man who ex- 
pecteth little, for he will not be disappointed.”* During 
the campaign warnings had been uttered. The Radical 
Bell’s News considered that if Palmerston should be swept 
into power, reform would be shelved,® and after the elec- 
tion it declared all mention of progress now mere humbug.® 
The Christian Weekly News had urged electors to consider 
Palmerston’s constant opposition to that most vital of all 
questions, reform.” A letter to the Daily News urged Lib- 
erals to ‘take guarantees’ before electing Palmerston.® 
The Middlesex Reform Association urged support both of 
Palmerston’s foreign policy and of reform candidates.® At 
Huddersfield a large public meeting defeated a motion of 
confidence in Palmerston “because he is opposed to reform 
and a determined opponent of the ballot.”?° One London 


* April 11, 1857. 

? Christian Weekly News, March 31, 1857. 
2 April 11, 1857. 

“December 5, 1857. 

* March 21, 1857. 

* March 29. 

™ March 10. 

* Quoted in Leeds Mercury, March 10. 
°West Middlesex Advertiser, March 14. 
” Christian Weekly News, March 17. 











— 

















REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION 129 


paper,’ after the election, believed that Palmerston would 
not be able to resist the growing demand for reform, and 
another* expressed the hope that he would bring in a wide 
measure. The Morning Star, exponent of Radical views, 
was urging the reform issue immediately after the election.* 
Sidney Herbert wrote that reform was the only subject of 
public interest in the next few months, though he did not 
believe a large measure was desired by a majority of the 
people. “Palmerston hates Reform as he hates the Devil. 
He only dislikes peace because it must lead to it. But 
the country has returned a Parliament to support Palmer- 


ston and Reform, and the two must be brought into har- 
| mony, or the former will go to the wall.’’* 


One other feature of this election should be mentioned; 


| namely, that this was the first time that nonconformists 


attempted to adopt an independent electoral policy. An 
Anti-State Church Association had been formed in 1842, but 
the real beginning of their organized political activity was 


in 1853, when the Society for the Liberation of Religion 


from State Patronage and Control was organized, followed 
in 1855 by the formation of an Electoral Committee under 
Samuel Morley, a wealthy manufacturer of Nottingham.® 
Upon the dissolution of parliament in 1857, the Liberation 
Society issued an address to electors requesting support for 


candidates advocating franchise, administrative, and fiscal 


reform, and the liberation of religion. ‘No candidate for 


* Borough of Greenwich Free Press, April 11. 

2 South London News, May 9. 

* Hobson, Cobden, the International Man, p. 208. 

“Lord Stanmore, Sidney Herbert, II. 89. 

*They were much concerned over the government grant to May- 
nooth College, a Catholic institution in Ireland, over the Sunday ques- 
tion, and the abolition of Church rates, for which a bill had passed the 
Commons in 1855 and 1856, failing in the Lords. 

° An account is given in “Electoral Action, with suggestions for its 
continuance. A paper read at the Fourth Conference of the Society for 
the Liberation of Religion, etc., by E. S. Pryce, May 7, 1856.” 


130 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


your suffrages who desires these ecclesiastical changes is 
likely to undervalue the political reforms to which reference 
has been made.’’? Dissenting journals urged independent 
action in the election. There appears to be little evidence 
of such action having been taken, but that the Liberationists 


were a constantly increasing factor in Liberal politics hence-— 


forth is certain.® 


* Leeds Mercury, March 12, 1857. 
* Tbid., March 28. British Banner, March 19. 


; 
: 
i 


y 


ee nae nee 


* What eyidence there is of their influence in this election is chiefly — 


in their opposition to the Sunday League. 


CHAPTER Vi 


| THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 
| UPON THE REVIVAL OF THE REFORM QUESTION 


: Turning aside from the election of 1857, which reintro- 


duced in an unmistakable fashion the question of an exten- 
sion of the franchise into English domestic politics and 
which cast much light upon the cross-currents through 
which the question would have to find its way, we must 
now consider certain other features of these years at the 
end of the decade that affected this and all related questions. 
All through the year 1857 there were occurring in the 
‘metropolis demonstrations of the unemployed, chiefly of the 
building trades, that evoked expressions of radical beliefs. 
These agitations were followed at the end of the year by 
the dislocation caused by a severe panic, and it in turn was 
succeeded by the great builders’ strike of 1859-60. Thus 
there were economic disturbances and conflicts of capital and 
labor, with their attendant theories as to the solution of social 
problems, that reacted powerfully upon the political situ- 
ation. Since the Preston strike of 1853-4, there had been 
no great industrial struggle. As the Webbs express it: 
“For a brief period it seemed as if peace was henceforth to 
prevail over the industrial world.”? But at the moment that 
‘the Crimean War ended there began again simultaneously 
industrial conflict and a movement for enfranchising the 
working classes. An intimate relationship was bound to 
develop between the two. 

Stagnation in the building trades by the end of 1856 had 
‘become distressing and apparently was without prospect of 
‘relief. Early in January, 1857, a meeting of about a hun- 
* History of Trade Unionism, p 227. 








132 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


dred unemployed builders decided to call a meeting of all the 
unemployed in order to form a “National Association of the 
Unemployed Operatives.”’ W. J. Macheath, who had taken 
the lead in the bread riots two years before, organized the 
meeting, which was convened under the auspices of the Lord 
Mayor in Smithfield market. About ten thousand were 
said to have been present; Hugh Pierce, a carpenter, pre- 
sided.* The speeches dwelt on the extent of unemployment® 
and the remedies proposed. They centered their attack upon 
the system of poor relief, which involved such humiliating 
conditions as stone-breaking or oakum-picking—the so- 
called “labor tests’ —which they maintained that self-respect- 
ing, skilled operatives ought not to have to submit to when 
out of work through no fault of their own. They insisted that 
they were entitled to relief at the hands of the national gov- 
ernment, that the latter should either provide employment 
upon the waste land, furnishing loans for draining and 
tilling it, or assist emigration. The chairman sought to 
strengthen his argument by the assertion that labor created 
all the wealth of the country. Resolutions were carried 
voicing these various demands, and also advising the work- 
ing classes themselves to seek to abolish over-time and to 
establish a six-day week as a partial remedy for unemploy- 
ment. It was suggested that a movement for an eight-hour 
day be started. The meeting concluded with the formation 
of a “National Association of Unemployed Operatives” and 
the decision to hold weekly meetings. 

In the course of the discussion, the question of politics 
was introduced in spite of the contrary wishes of those in 


* Bell’s News, January 10, 1857. 
* Tbid., January 17, and British Standard, January 16. 


*It was said that a quarter of a million were out of work in the 
metropolis. 





SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 133 


| charge of the meeting.’ A house-painter declared that the 


House of Commons was in the hands of men who purposely 


caused unemployment in order to keep labor redundant and 


wages low. Would they, therefore, aid emigration and thus 
raise wages? Another speaker, supporting this argument, 
moved that “until the people obtain their political and social 
rights they can never grapple with the evils under which they 
suffer.” 

The Newcastle Weekly Chronicle discussed this meeting 
in an editorial of great length under the heading, ‘“‘Socialism 
at Smithfield.” It recognized the fact as serious, that while 
peace had given great impetus to business and speculation, 
yet in the wealthiest city in the world ten thousand working- 
men should meet to consider how to save their families from 
starvation. Nevertheless, it declared, the doctrines there 
enunciated revealed 
the startling fact that education has as yet done little to remove the 
barriers of prejudice and ignorance which separate class from class 
in this country. The old fallacies still hold their ground; capital is 
still denounced as antagonistic to labour, and the possession of a 
“bit of land” still declared to be the infallible remedy for all the ills 
the poor man is heir to. All men are equal, and no one has a right 
to a greater share of the earth than another; this is the popes 
theory. . . . But this plan of redistribution of property 
is looked upon as a last resource; the workmen’s chief complaint is 
against their masters. Capitalists appear to be considered by the 
poor as their natural foes; they are supposed to engross all the 
profits of industry, leaving it to others to provide the labour for 
which so scanty a recompense is given.” 

The London correspondent to this paper insisted that these 
meetings were a more significant sign of the times than mere 
party politics. 

Other great meetings of the unemployed followed. 
Bands of men out of work roved the streets of London. 

* At the outset it had been announced that the meeting was not to be 
diverted toward politics by the agents of Bronterre O’Brien or any such 


person. 
* January 23, 1857. 


134 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Conditions in the manufacturing districts were described as 
even worse.'! Ernest Jones gathered together an audience of 
ten thousand men on his own account and preached to them 
once more his land and Chartist gospel.2 The Times had an 
editorial on his speech, a column and a half long, in which 
it adjured the British artisan to “avoid political agitation as 
he would the plague.”* 

Conditions failed to improve in the course of the year, 
and in the autumn came a panic that spread distress over the 
whole country.* The increase in the number of paupers in 
the large towns over the figures for 1857 had by 1858 in one 
instance reached as high as 160.02%.° Wages were reduced 
in many industries. Though a general recovery began after 
a few months, the effect of the crisis continued to be felt all 
through the year 1858. 

Those of the working classes who felt the hard times 
most severely were deeply stirred by the conviction that some 
means of permanent relief should be effected by government 
action. In Birmingham the unemployed held several meet- 
ings in the spring of 1858 to call upon the government to aid 
emigration. A memorial to the Queen was adopted and sent 
to Bright for presentation. He, in his reply, took occasion 
to drive home once more his argument for fiscal reform by 
attributing conditions largely to rising taxes and government 
expenditure.® Later in the year the newly formed Trades 
Council in Glasgow invited Bright to attend a meeting on 
emigration. In declining, he stated they had no right to 


* Bell’s News, February 21, 1857. 

’ 2 Described in a pamphlet, Evenings with the People, No. 7. 

* February 18, 1858. 

*Beecroft, M.P. for Leeds, stated in parliament that this panic 
was far more severe than that of 1847. (Hansard, CLII. 68.) 

° These figures are for Preston. In Manchester the increase was 
122.87%. See W. R. Callender, The Commercial Crisis of 1857. Its 
Cause and Results, London, 1858. 

® Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, April 2, 1858. 


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 135 


| government aid, and to such he would never give his con- 
sent.1 The meeting was held notwithstanding, and ap- 
propriate resolutions were passed.” Thus did economic dis- 
turbance stir up from the social depths specters of fallacious 
theories to frighten those among the middle classes who 
_would help workingmen to political emancipation. 
Not only were the unemployed raising the question of 
poor relief, but in the large cities, especially in London, the 
question of the area of rating for the poor had become seri- 
ous, and it too was regarded as possessing dangerous pos- 
sibilities. The increasing concentration of the poor in cer- 
tain parishes owing to improvements made in others lightened 
| the burden of the poor rate on the rich and increased it on 
_the poor as long as each parish was responsible for-its own 
paupers. Since 1848 proposals had been made in parliament 
to extend the area of rating, but every time they had been 
frustrated by the alarm felt lest any change become the first 
step toward a national system of rating.* In 1857 a seri- 
-OUs movement was set on foot in London to extend the area 
of rating to the whole of the metropolis. An association 
_was formed for the purpose.* A. S. Ayrton became spokes- 
man for it in the House. The debates again revealed the 
fears of the propertied class. A Liberal Chancellor of the 
Exchequer compared the whole proposition to the national 
workshops in Paris, while a Conservative President of the 
Poor Law Board pronounced the measure communistic, since 
it aimed to raise money from the rich and give it to the 
poor.® 














* Beacon and Christian Times, September 22, 1858. 

2 Whitehaven Herald, September 25, 1858. 

>See debate on Chas. Buller’s bill in 1848, Hansard, C. 800 ff. For 
the whole question see Mackay, op. cit., ILI. 342-364. 

*There is a pamphlet in the British Museum called The Association 
for Promoting the Equalization of the Poor Rate and Uniformity of 
Assessment Throughout the Metropolitan Districts, March 17, 1857. 
An address. 

° Hansard, CXLV. 1403 ff.; CL. 509-16. 


136 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


In connection with this matter of parochial interest, i 
may be mentioned that there appears to have been a fairl 
widespread effort in the populous London parishes, as well 
in certain large provincial towns, to democratize the loca 
government by abolishing plural voting and property quali- 
fications imposed upon members of certain local boards. I 
the large working-class parish of Shoreditch, an association 
had been formed in 1853 to do away with these obstacles to 
the “rights of the poor.”? In discussions at the meetings 
of the association, allusion was made to the existence of 
similar bodies in other parishes. In 1857 a certain local 
London paper noted much activity of these associations.? 
In the North similar bodies were numerous by 1857. At 
North Shields a painter presided over the first meeting of 
the Parochial Reform Association. In Newcastle the Rate- 
payers’ Association in this year was beginning a vigorous 
campaign against the ruling cliques, and, itself a radically 
democratic body, it soon played an important part in democ- 
ratizing the local government of the borough and in winning: 
parliamentary representation from the Whigs.* 

Another factor in the social and economic situation, how- 
ever, was of more importance politically than all others com- 
bined. That factor was the builders’ nine-hour movement 
of 1859-61. The influence of this agitation upon all political 
questions involving the working classes was most important 
at the time and far-reaching in its ultimate consequences. 
It was distinctly the starting point of a new phase of the 
labor question. 







* Shoreditch Parochial Reformer, October, 1853. Only two issues of 
this are in the British Museum. 

? East London Observer, November 7, 1857. It mentions Wm. New- 
ton (no doubt of the Amalgamated Engineers) as president of the 
Tower Hamlets Association. 

* Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, September 24; October 2, 1857. 

* See below, pp. 182 and 249, and above, p. 119. 











} 


\ 

















SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 137, 


During the fifties organized labor had been compara- 


tively obscure and ineffective so far as the public mind 
judged it. Beginning with the builders’ strike for a nine- 
hour day, the ruling classes realized that the vague, inchoate, 
hybrid labor agitations of the forties and early fifties—half 


trade-unionist and half Chartist, or here trade-unionist and 
there Chartist—had given place to definite programs backed 
by strong organization. The impression made upon the pub- 
lic was profound. The contest tended also to make trade- 
unionists themselves more conscious of their industrial power 
and to reveal to the leaders the need of political action in 
order to safeguard and promote their organized activities. 


Such an epochal conflict served as a flaring torch to reveal 


the vaguely known lineaments of social and industrial forces 


and enforced a distinct registering of them upon the con- 


sciousness of the different social groups. 

It was in 1857, the year of the revival of the reform 
question, that the carpenters in London renewed their de- 
mand for a nine-hour day.t' This move on their part was 
certainly connected with the stagnation and unemployment 


in the building trades, which has been already referred to. 
At the beginning of the next year opposition by the master 
builders led to the formation by the workmen of a joint 
“committee of five building trades, known as the Conference 
of the United Building Trades. This committee directed 
the movement, which soon attracted nation-wide attention.? 


Its leading member was George Potter, who for two decades 


was to be a conspicuous figure in labor affairs. By the mid- 


die of 1859 negotiations with the employers had completely 


broken down, and the Master Builders’ Association closed 


*See Webb, op. cit., pp. 228-32; for an account of the main features 
of the struggle. 


7A history of the movement up to August was given in the Times 
of August 5, 1858. 


138 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


down their establishments,’ throwing twenty-four thousand 
men out of work. The masters determined upon an effort 
to break up all combinations by forcing the men to sign a 
document renouncing trade societies before being taken back 
into employment. A week later the Master Builders sent a 
deputation to the home secretary to ask that the masters bel 
fortified by an expression of opinion in parliament or by the 
government. They suggested an examination of the rules 
of trade societies to determine wherein they restricted labor, 
with a view to compelling the removal of such rules.2 The 
home secretary replied that the government could not act. 

The moment the struggle took on the character of a war 
on trade-unionism, workingmen all over the country were 
concerned. In London the trades in general took up the 
cause of the builders. Conferences of Trades’ Delegates 
were held.* Addresses were issued to the working classes 
of the kingdom on “Labour in its Trial Time.”* The Con- 
ference sent a deputation to the provinces to agitate a nine- 
hour movement among the trades and to collect money.° 
“Trades Committees” were organized in all the chief towns, 
and money came in in large amounts to aid the builders.® 
The Amalgamated Engineers alone gave three thousand 
pounds. A sense of unity was quickened in all the ranks of 
labor. George Potter, speaking often through Reynolds's 
Newspaper, uttered doctrines that sounded ill to the watch- 
ful and apprehensive upper classes. The strike was a battle 
of “the weak against the strong.” The response of the 
trades with money was “pregnant with the brightest hopes 


*The men had struck in only one (Webb, op. cit., p. 229). 

* Leeds Mercury, August 11, 1859. Also the Builders’ Salesman and 
Mechanics’ Advertiser, August 20, 1859. 

° Builders’ Salesman, etc., September 17, 24, 1859. 

*The Mechanics’ Advertiser, September 10, 1859. (This is the same 
as the Builders’ Salesman. The title varied.) 

° Builders’ Salesman, August 20, 1859. 

abe total amount was twenty-three thousand pounds. Webb, op. 
cit., p. 230. 


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 139 


| 
of the future union and emancipation of the working 


*1 When it became certain the masters would have 


classes.’ 
to withdraw “the document,” he hailed it as a “triumph of 


enslaved labour over usurping capital’’ ;? and when the tri- 





umph was assured, he thanked the workingmen of the 
kingdom for their defence of “‘the fiercely assailed rights of 
your class. . . . These sacrifices so cheerfully made, 
and the triumph which they have enabled us to win, we hail 
as the earnest of that complete victory of labour over its 
present oppressors which we believe the future to have in 
fetore for us.”* 

| The reaction of the upper and middle classes to the great 
contest, with its accompanying features of class cooperation 
and class feeling, was for the most part antagonistic. The 
Times, upon the renewal of the nine-hour demand after the 
withdrawal of the “document,” warned trade-unions that 
persistence in.such tactics was making public opinion hos- 
tile; that this “was very evident throughout the course of 
| ast autumn. It cropped up repeatedly in parliamentary dis- 
cussions and in the speeches of public men.”* Adam Black, 
M.P. for Edinburgh, delivered a set attack upon trade- 
“unions to the operatives of that place, which was answered 
two weeks later by an address delivered to them by William 
Newton at the request of the Amalgamated Engineers.® 
The Edinburgh Review wrote of the “irresponsible govern- 
ment” of unions, which destroyed the liberty of the English 
| citizen; while the Times pronounced trade-unionism “an 
‘ignorant and _ inquisitorial despotism.”® The Derbyite 














* Reynolds’s Newspaper, January 1, 1860. 

* Tbid., January 22, 1860. 

* Tbid., March 11. 

| *Quoted in Reynolds's Newspaper, May 27, 1860. 
| * Journal of Typographic Arts, April 2, 1860. 

| * Both quoted by T. J. Dunning in his defence of trade combinations, 
Trade Unions and Strikes; Their Philosophy and Intention. London, 
1860, pp. 8 and 9. 


140 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Morning Herald asserted that the success of the nine-hour 
demand would drive England’s trade from the worl 
market. t 
Frederick Harrison and the Positivists saw deep import 
in the struggle. Harrison described his impression of a 
great mass meeting held in the course of it: | 
What an abyss of social tyranny, wrong, and false witness it opened. 
One seemed to be living in the midst of an oppressed race bent on 
their own emancipation and improvement, and yet kept. down by 
the power of wealth and by literary sophistry. How society seems 
to me to be living over a mine. . . . The little incident of the 
“Builders’ Strike” was, of course, but a drop in the ocean. It 


opened to me a vision of a great battle going on all around ang 
beneath us.2 


Professor Beesly, discussing trade-unions in the W — 
ster Review,? declared that this strike had such marked 
features ‘‘that it seems to have a chance of standing in the 
same relation to the coming industrial régime, as the meeting 
of the States General in ’eighty-nine does to the subsequent 
history of Europe.” 

The discussion of trade-unionism became more serious 
and thorough in all quarters as a result of the light into 
which it was now brought. The builders had the good 
sense to seek publicity. Their cause received brilliant 
defence at the hands of Positivists and Christian Socialists.® 
The National Association for the Promotion of Social Sci- 
ence published a searching report on trade combinations in 
1860, contributed to by such friends of working men as 
Hughes, Ludlow, Maurice, Henry Fawcett, and W. E. For- 
ster. At the same time T. J. Dunning, of the Bookbinders, 


* Quoted in Reynolds’s Newspaper, June 3, 1860. 

? Autobiographic Memoirs, London, 1911, I. 252-3. 

* October 1, 1861. 

* Builders’ Salesman and Mechanics Advertiser (September 24, 1859) 
states that this brought sympathy and was the stronghold of the men, 

* Webb, op. cit., p. 246. 

SlDsd= (Dp. cers note 2.° Also F. Harrison, National and Social Prob- 
lems, New York, 1908, p. 423; and Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, July 
10, 1861, 


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 141 


published his able discussion of trade-unions in his trade 
circular, since no “respectable” publisher would handle it.t 

The nine-hour movement was renewed by the building 
trades as soon as the first victory over the masters was won. 
Potter, unquestionably feeling himself about to embark on a 
crusade for the cause of labor, strove to make the movement 
national. A conference of delegates from most of the in- 
dustrial centers was held at Derby, an association was 
formed, and plans were mapped out.? Builders’ strikes 
were resumed in London and elsewhere in 1861, and they 
provoked such increasingly hostile comments in the press? 
that the Spectator was led to declare that workingmen were 
justified in believing that their case could not get a hearing, 
and that this would increase the chasm between classes.* 
So embittered was the antagonism becoming that Frederick 
Harrison, in a letter to the Daily News, said: 
Other trades, especially the engineers, are taking up their case— 
meetings are being held and subscriptions are being raised in the 
provinces. The whole apparatus of workmen’s associations is being 
called into full play. It is creating, in fact, a sort of union amongst 
unions. Ina word, the contest is becoming the common cause of all 
working men, and what began in a local dispute is growing into a 
great class struggle.> 

The reference here may have been in part to the newly 
organized London Trades Council, which was an outgrowth 
of the strike and lockout. Beginning in July, 1860, within 
a year it had gained the adhesion of the strongest unions. 
George Howell, who was assisting Potter in organizing the 
nine-hour movement, became its secretary, and it began to 


*So stated in the introduction to the pamphlet, in which the articles 
were soon published (London, 1860). 


* Reynolds's Newspaper, January 27, 1861. Also Geo. Howell, Labour 
Legislation, etc., p. 134. 


* Many quoted in Reynolds’s. 

“Quoted in Reynolds’s, July 7, 1861. 

* Tbid., August 1, 1861, quoting the News. 
Webb, op. cit., pp. 243-5. 


| 


142 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 4 
participate in London and even national labor questions im 
such a way as to become a highly important influence. It 
became an instrument of trade-unionist political activity.’ 

The builders’ strike in London eventually ended in a 
compromise.” Potter’s attempted national organization 
came to nothing. Its conferences, however, had contributed 
not a little to the development of a spirit of codperation 
among labor leaders all over ‘the country.* This spirit, 
from 1860 on, was an increasingly important factor in the 
industrial and political situation. The organization of num- 
erous trade councils between 1858 and 1867 tended toward 
the same result.* 

This growing consolidation of the trade-union move- 
ment and the greater influence thereby accruing to its lead- 
ers undoubtedly struck with consternation the middle and 
upper classes. So many developments were pointing to the 
increased weight of organized labor that they indicated an. 
element of effectiveness in the ranks of the working classes 
that had hitherto been wanting. The student of trade- 
unionism can see that in those years the movement was 
advancing toward an acceptance of middle-class principles,® 
but it may well be doubted if the middle classes had at the 
time a very clear conception of this fact. To them the basic 
principles of unionism were themselves anathema, not to be 
palliated by conciliatory explanations. There was on both 
sides an absence of consistent reasoning. Trade-unionism: 
might argue from the principles of freedom of action, but 
it was based upon restraint and collectivism; middle-class 

*One of its first acts was political; it forced the government to 
withdraw the soldiers it had lent as strike-breakers at the Chelsea bar- 
Fis (Webb, of. cit., p. 247. Also Reynolds's Newspaper, August 4, 

2 Webb, op. cit., p. 246. 

*So states Howell, op. cit., p. 134. 


* Webb, op. cit., p. 242 and note 1. 
° Webb, op. cit., p. 226. 


SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 143 


opponents would be bound logically to concede to working- 
men the right to combine, but they saw as the ultimate aim 
interference with their own control of industry, their own 
unfettered enterprise. 

In addition, when an attempt is made to analyze the 
opinion of those years it must be remembered that opinion 
then, as always, was undiscriminating. Middle-class poli- 
ticians or journalists could not with the clear eye of the 
twentieth-century historian discern the more significant lead- 
ers of the labor world from the rest. They inevitably fixed 
their attention upon those who figured most prominently, 
and of these in the early ’sixties the chief was George Pot- 
ter, organizer of the nine-hour movement. There is no ques- 
tion that to the average member of parliament Potter typi- 
fied trade-unionism, and Potter was militant. 

In another industrial field than the building trades, devel- 
opments were likewise taking place that were to be of con- 
sequence for the political world as well as the economic. 
The miners were organizing and frankly adopting a policy 
of political action. In 1860 the miners’ organization secured 
the passage of a valuable Act for the Regulation and In- 
spection of Mines, and in 1863 the National Association of 
Miners was formed with a full political program and political 
methods outlined.* 

The middle classes, in their survey of working-class opin- 
ion and their estimate of the possible uses to which the vote 
would be put, undoubtedly were much influenced by such 
evidence as the nine-hour movement, the organization of 
trade councils, the agitation for state-aided emigration and 
the use of the waste lands by the unemployed, and the wax- 
ing power and self-consciousness of the miners with their 
belief in state interference. Cobden in a letter to William 


* Transactions and Results of the National Association of Coal, Lime, 
and Iron-stone Miners, held at Leeds, November, 1863. London, 1864. 


144 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Williams, M.P. for Lambeth, in 1858 stated that man 
feared to give the vote to workingmen because of the un: 
sound views on wages which they would try to enforce by 
act of parliament. For himself, while he doubted the oan 
ence of “this monster ‘Socialism’ ” among the ron 
yet he believed there was “‘a tendency among many of the 
working-class to regard their interests as separate from and 
antagonistic to those of their employers’—a false view, 
which he believed already showed signs of giving way be-_ 
fore experience. That Cobden was surmounting obstacles 
which he recognized as formidable to many and was aban-. 
doning his fear of democracy of a few years before is plain 
from his concluding words: 


The longer I live the greater is my reverence for, and trust in, 
the mass of humanity. . . . My own opinion is, that if the work- 
ing classes had votes they would be quite as Conservative in their 
tendencies as any other section of the community. They would 
not separate themselves from other classes, but range themselves 
under influential leaders as they do now.! 

A description of the conditions prevailing in England 
about 1860 would not be complete that neglected to take 
into account, in addition to economic conditions, trade dis- 
putes and manifestations of workingmen’s interest in poli- 
tics, their unabated enthusiasm for the cause of liberty abroad 
as well. This last was a prime factor in keeping alive and 
developing the political consciousness of workingmen, even 
though it did somewhat divert their democratic zeal from 
attacks on political privilege at home. Italy excited their 
profound interest and sympathy. The election of 1859 
turned upon the two questions of Italy and reform, upon _ 
both of which the Conservatives stood condemned in the 
eyes of the people. When Palmerston came back, it was 
felt that the cause of Italian unification was in safer 


* Quoted in Christian Times, January 24, 1858. 


| 
\ 
































SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS 145 


hands than in those of the pro-Austrian Conservatives. The 


_ question of Italy, George Howell testified later, had import- 


ant consequences in the political labor movement, for it was 
the means of bringing labor leaders together more closely 


and of interesting them more keenly in politics. 


* Labour Legislation, etc., p. 140. 


CHAPTER Vi 


JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 


Toward the end of 1857 John Bright, defeated in the 
general election at Manchester, was returned as member 
for Birmingham. Just as Gladstone’s transference from 
Oxford to South Lancashire in 1865 was a momentous 
event in the political history of England, so that of Bright 
from Manchester to Birmingham was significant in the 
history of the reform question. Birmingham, parent of the 
Political Unions of 1831-2, was now to be the center of the 
Radical movement that was ultimately to mean urban democ- 
racy in England. The third and last service of this great 
city of the Midlands to the cause of Liberalism was to be, 
still later, the evolution of the caucus as a means to harness 
and drive this democracy. For two thirds of the nineteenth 
century the name of Birmingham was as intimately associ- 
ated with Radical politics as that of Manchester was with 
middle-class economics. Cobden remarked in 1856 that the 
people of Lancashire were growing conservative and aristo- 
cratic with prosperity! and in 1857 that the new demo- 
cratic appeal in Lancashire had failed. Birmingham, on 
the contrary, he regarded as much freer from aristocratic 
snobbery and as possessing a fairer appreciation of democ- 
racy.” This contrast he attributed to the fact that Birm- 
ingham was not a city of great capitalists, as Manchester 
was, and that consequently there was no such wide gulf 
there between masters and men.* One student of Chartism 
points out that Engels had declared the work-people of 










* Hobson, Cobden, the International Man, p. 180. 
? Ibid., p. 193. Also Morley, Cobden, p. 443. 
* Hobson, op. cit., p. 194. 


JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 147 


Manchester to be the most thoroughly proletarianized in 
all England in the forties and hence strongly Chartist, while 
in Birmingham the artisans were partially independent; 
hence Birmingham was Radical in politics and not Char- 
tist.1 Holyoake, in his autobiography, bears witness to the 
sound Radicalism of the town, saying that the people here 
had a steadier attachment to independence and liberty than 
anywhere else in England.2 Conditions in Birmingham, 
therefore, accorded well with the basic principles of that 
advance guard of Liberalism of which Bright was head 
-and chief—the union of the middle and working classes 
‘upon a wide basis of political democracy. Hence when, 
in 1857, Bright was chosen as member for Birmingham, 
it might have been recognized as a prophecy. 
| In tracing the history of the reform question in the 
decade before 1867 it is helpful to observe two lines of 
development. One is that which had Bright for a leader; 
the other was more distinctly in the hands of workingmen 
| themselves through the formation of associations and the 
| promotion of reform propaganda. It is of interest to note 
_the various points of approach or divergence between the 
‘two and to analyze the contribution of each to the final 
result. 

After the election of 1857 the government promised 
' that the reform question would be taken up the next year. 
| Certain members of parliament, therefore, and other 
| Radicals? formed a Parliamentary Reform Committee, 
_ with Roebuck as chairman, for the purpose of enlisting all 
| reformers under the banner of household suffrage and the 
| other demands of Hume’s “‘Little Charter,” plus the aboli- 











|  +*Slosson, Decline of the Chartist Movement, p. 162. 

| * Sixty Years of an Agitators’ Life, 1. 34. 

| * Others who participated were Miall, Fox, and Samuel Morley (the 
| nonconformist). (Duncombe, Life and Correspondence of Thomas 
pee Duncombe, 11. 213). The organization was formed in June, 











148 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


tion of property qualifications for members of parliament,* 
precisely the program of the now defunct Parliamentary 
and Financial Reform Association. The movement made 
little headway, however, until Bright, after a brief illness, 
placed himself at the head of it in 1858. This, says 
Trevelyan, marked a new era in the history of the question. 
Henceforth, until 1867, it possessed a vital significance. 
Hitherto reform bills had been’a matter for the House of 
Commons rather than the country, and parties had meant 
little by introducing them. Now the movement was to be 
outside the House, and Bright was to lead the two indus- 
trial classes on a “democratic crusade against the privileged 
orders.”? Says Trevelyan: 

The hour had come and the man. The era of Chartism and mutual 
class suspicion had passed away; far in the future lay the time 
when “labour politics” would come into collision with “middle-class 
conservatism.” The times were ripe for a union of the Radical 
part of the middle classes with the working men. 

But that this union was not easy to effect, and that class 
antagonism had not wholly vanished, will appear from a 
close analysis of the movement begun in 1858. 

The reasons for the inauguration of this agitation by 
Bright were several. The considerations that had weighed 
with him in 1848 weighed still. The Crimean War had 
sharply revealed the inefficiency of the aristocratic govern- 
ment and had emphasized the value of peace as an element 
in the nation’s fiscal policy. It is true that the masses had 
displayed a war spirit that must have shaken Bright’s con- 
fidence in democracy as a pacifist influence, but he relied 
on education in the dire consequences of war to act as a 
corrective. The middle classes were still under-represented 
in parliament through the preponderance of small boroughs 

* Borough of Greenwich Free Press, November 21, 1857. 


? Trevelyan, Bright, pp. 267-8. 
* Trevelyan, Bright, p. 271. 


JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 149 


i 
| 


and agricultural counties in the House of Commons and the 
monopoly of the House of Lords by the territorial aristoc- 
‘racy. The conflict still presented itself to him as in the 
days of Corn Law repeal as one between the nation and 
‘the landlords. By arousing the nation to a consciousness 


‘of the community of its interests and the extent of its 





might, the work begun in 1846 could be completed. Only 


then could Bright visualize an England such as the actual 
distribution of social and economic weight seemed to him to 


‘demand. Furthermore, the privileged Church, like the 
privileged aristocracy, could be forced to surrender only to 





an all-compelling force such as an effective national party 
could exert. 
Added to these fundamental arguments for an agitation 








for franchise reform, were others arising from considera- 


| tions of party tactics. Three times within the decade had a 
government promised a bill, only to abandon the project 
-each time. Palmerston had just resigned under a pledge, 


which the Derby government had renewed. The situation 
appeared to reformers to be critical. Unless they were 
vigilant, Disraeli might effect an alliance with the Whigs 


to redeem the pledge by passing a wholly inadequate bill. 


On the other hand, the Conservatives, a minority in the 
House ardently desirous of retaining office, might be coerced 
by the Radicals, if supported by a popular agitation, into 


conceding a large measure of reform. A Tory surrender 











to an agitation such as had occurred in 1829 and 1846, 
and was to occur in 1867, was not an impossibility in 1858. 
The Radicals wished to avoid above all things a collision 
with the Derby government, lest Palmerston be returned 
to office and reform be postponed indefinitely. They 
believed that Derby would concede much in order to keep 
office.+ 


*Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, April 2, 1858, and Whitehaven Her- 
ald, April 17, 1858, in an account of a Reformers’ Conference. 





| 
150 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND ; 
r 


ment was the fact that the working classes themselves we 
interested in the question. A sense of betrayal would ce 
tainly possess them if the issue were trifled with ~ 


A final inducement to Bright to enter upon this mo : 


longer. They were speaking out already in their meetings 
and associations. It was essential for the welfare of the 
state that the question should be dealt with in a statesman- 
like manner, in the interest of all classes, and not in response 
to an angry class demand. The Chartist movement had 
fixed this latter danger indelibly in the minds of politicians 
as a possibility, in the event of another conjunction of | 
severe commercial depression with an active feeling of 
resentment and distrust toward the ruling classes. To con- 
cede what was just because it was just was a wiser policy 
than grudgingly to concede it to threats of violence. Bright 
hoped to bring parliament to the point of making such con- 
cessions as should have the appearance at least and the ef- 
fect of concessions to justice. In reality, as his inaugura- 
tion of a popular agitation shows, he knew the concessions, 
if made, would be in response to the hint of the reserve” 
power residing in the nation that this agitation would 
furnish. 

Another part of Bright’s tactics was for reformers to 
embody their demands in a reform bill of their own, as an 
illustration to the government of what they would expect, 
and to organize a vigorous agitation for it, which should 
threaten the independent action of reformers unless the 
government measure should satisfy them. 

The campaign opened at Birmingham in October, 1858. 
Bright, having warned his hearers of the danger of a “coun- 
try gentleman’s Reform Bill,’ demanded why reformers 
should not have their own reform bill, have it introduced 
into parliament and “supported with all the strength of the 





: 
JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 151 
great national party; and if it be a bill sensibly better than 
the bill that is being prepared for us in Downing Street, 
why should we not, with all the unanimity of which we are 
capable, by public meetings, by petitions, and when the pro- 
per time comes by presenting ourselves at the polling booths, 
do everything in our power to pass that measure into law?’’? 
| The vital point in the program, which was to serve as a 
basis of the “great national party” which Bright hoped to 
call into being, was now, as in 1850: how far should the 
‘suffrage be extended? Bright pronounced for a rate-paying 
household suffrage. He had been urged by Joseph Sturge, 
still true to his platform of fifteen years before, to champion 
manhood suffrage, but Bright had replied: “I am not 
working for failure, but for success, and for a real gain, 
and I must go the way to get it. Iam sure the putting of 
‘manhood suffrage in the Bill is not the way.”’? To this 
Birmingham audience, many of whom he admitted believed 
‘in manhood suffrage, he declared: “I have not the smallest 
objection to the widest possible suffrage that the ingenuity 
‘of man can devise,” yet such a measure could not then be 
wisely advocated. 

__ A week after the public launching of the movement, a 
step was taken to organize it. A conference of reformers 
was held in London, called by the Parliamentary Reform 
Committee, to deliberate on the plan Bright had outlined at 
Birmingham, by which private members were to prepare 
their own bill and attempt to force it upon the government 
by calling into play agitation out of doors. Anti-Corn Law 
League tactics were to be furbished up anew. The hope 
doubtless was not so much to pass their own measure as to 
use it as a basis for a new political party or as a lever to 











_ *Mr. Bright’s Speeches at Birmingham, etc., London, 1859. (A 
pamphlet corrected by Bright), p. 6; also, Speeches on Public Policy by 
John Bright, ed. Rogers, London, 1868, II. 3-30. 


* Trevelyan, Bright, p. 270, note 1. 














152 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


force a good bill from Parliament. The conference con 
ferred upon Bright the task of drawing up the bill and in- 
troducing it. Its provisions were not declared, for Bright 
requested the fullest liberty in his conduct of the matter? 

Bright continued to multiply his public utterances. His 
speeches struck the conservative portion of the people as 
radical in the extreme, even as republican. They appeared 
to threaten the foundations of the constitution. Thus his: 
speech at the conference had attacked the House of Lords 
as incompatible with free institutions. His next address, 
before an enormous crowd in the Free Trade Hall, Man- 
chester, where the old Leaguers were present in force with 
George Wilson in the chair, reiterated this belief. “We 
know, everybody knows, nobody knows it better than the 
Peers, that a house of hereditary legislators cannot be a 
permanent institution in a free country.”* And as matters 
then stood, he declared, even the House of Commons was 
little better than a deputy of the House of Lords, an organ 
of the great territorial interests. It hated equality of taxa- 
tion; it shielded real property from bearing its share of the 
public burdens; it passed no measure because it was just, 
but because of popular restlessness or the exigencies of 
party. 

The Glasgow speech? of a week later sought to show 
workingmen what they would gain by reform. They 
would profit by an extension of free trade even to the land 
and by an economical fiscal policy which an enlightened 
foreign policy would do much to insure; everything the 


* Report of the Conference in the Beacon and Christian Times, Nov- 
ember 10, 1858. One hundred twenty delegates were present, including 
about a dozen M.P.’s; also Miall, S. Morley, and P. A. Taylor. No 
workingmen were recorded as present, but doubtless a few leaders were. 

? Mr. Bright’s Speeches at Birmingham, etc., London, 1859 (account 
copied from the Manchester Guardian). 

*Tbid. (from Morning Star); also, Speeches on Questions of Public 
Policy, II. 53-79, 





JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 153 


age nment spent, he declared, diminished the fund out of 
‘which wages were paid. 

It was not until the fourth great meeting, at Bradford 
‘in the West Riding in January, 1859, that Bright finally 
‘made known the terms of his bill—household suffrage for 
boroughs, a ten-pound suffrage for counties, redistribution, 
and the ballot.1 Here he emphasized the importance of 
redistribution: “Repudiate without mercy any bill of any 
government, whatever its franchise, whatever its seeming 
concessions may be, if it does not distribute the seats obtained 
from the extinction of small boroughs mainly amongst the 
great city and town populations of the kingdom. The ques- 
tion of distribution is the very soul of the question of 
reform.” His own proposals on this point were sweeping. 
He would take one hundred and twenty-five seats from small 
“boroughs and give them) to large towns and industrial 
-counties.2 He answered the charge of unfairness to the 
land by asserting that the House of Lords represented it 
almost exclusively. 

The clauses of Bright’s proposed bill were a disappoint- 
-ment both to those who had hoped and to those who had 
| feared that he would go farther. The Leeds Mercury' 
“summarized the press comments: the Times was surprised 
at the moderation of the proposals, after the speeches; the 
Globe declared it would enthrone the manufacturers and 
was neither a liberal nor a national measure; the pro-Bright 








| *Ibid. (from Manchester Examiner and Times). Also Leeds Mer- 
cury, January 18, 1859, and H. J. Leech, Public Letters of John Bright, 
pp. 82 ff. 

7A report called Information for Reformers respecting the cities 
and boroughs of the United Kingdom, classified according to the sched- 
ules of the Reform Bill proposed by John Bright. Prepared at the re- 
quest of the London Parliamentary “Reform Committee, etc., by Duncan 
McLaren, London, 1859, gives an excellent analysis of population, prop- 
erty, amount of taxes paid, etc., and reveals the middle-class nature of 
| Bright’s proposals. 
* January 18, 20, 1859. 











154 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Daily News and the radical Morning Advertiser praised it; 
while the Morning Post declared that Bright’s reputation 
as a public man had been so completely destroyed by his four 
addresses that the public would not now credit his seeming 
moderation as due to conviction. Bright further explained 
his ideas in the course of the next few weeks, by saying 
that he did not mean to propose even complete household 
suffrage. He would fix a three-pound rating line, above 
which all would be enfranchised, and below which those 
could gain the vote who would personally pay their rates. 
Practically all houses below a three-pound rating were then 
compounded for, the landlord paying the rates. Bright 
hoped thus to exclude “such as are not likely to have any 
independence and such as are utterly careless as to the 
possessing of a vote.” Since Bright also advocated only a 
ten-pound franchise for counties, it was conceded by many 
that he had receded from the advanced position taken in his 
first speech. One journal? declared that after having 
done his utmost to excite the people by promising every man 
a vote, he turned round and shut the door in the face of 
four-fifths of the “raging multitude.” ‘Dost thee think,” 
it asked, “the mob will cease to howl, or that Ernest Jones 
will not come behind and say of thee all that thou hast said 
of the shortcoming Whigs?” A pamphleteer appealed not 
to “the Bright of the embryo Reform Bill, which would 
bring all England under the rule of Cotton Lords, but the 
Bright of the Glasgow oration.’’® 
Attempts were made at once to give the new movement 

an organized form. This was the beginning of a series of 
* Newcastle Chronicle supplement, April 16, 1859. Also Leech, ope 
cit., pp. 82 ff. | 
? The Beacon and Christian Times, December 15, 1858. It had 
learned before the Bradford speech what it was to propose. 
°Who is the “Reformer,” John Stuart Mill or John Bright? London, | 


1859. It approved Mill’s recent Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform, 
which pronounced universal suffrage right, though not yet expedient. 

















JOHN BRIGHT. AND REFORM 155 


political associations that appeared and disappeared, or grew 
in strength, or shifted position, constantly up to 1867. 
‘A careful scrutiny of them will be found to yield important 
results for an understanding of the inner workings of Eng- 
lish politics in this critical decade. Now at Birmingham was 
‘formed a Reformers’ Union, which set itself the task of 
organizing the Midland towns.’ A similar one was the 
Lancashire Reformers’ Union, which included many of the 
Corn Law Leaguers. George Wilson, who had been 
president of the League, was president of this Union. 
Early i in 1859 it held a conference to which a thousand dele- 
gates came,” and which resolved to support Bright’s bill. 
A West Riding Association was formed for the same 
purpose.* 

Bright’s agitation served in more ways than one to define 
the issues involved in the central question. Especially did 
‘it draw from the Conservatives expressions which prove 
‘their fears of reform and at the same time their realization 
‘that in the support of the working classes perhaps lay the 
‘key to future power. They tried, therefore, to sow dissen- 
‘sion in the ranks of reformers and to bid for democratic 
‘support for Conservatism. In this vein, Henry Drummond, 
MP., wrote his pamphlet, A Letter to Mr. Bright on his 
|\Plan for Turning the English Monarchy into a Democracy. 
A characteristic bit reads: 





: 
: 


Lai chief panacea is, that the members of the House of Commons 
‘should represent men, and not property. Now since property al- 
‘Ways was, always is, and always must be in the hands of a few, 
and distress, poverty, starvation, wretchedness, suffering, cold, 
hunger, sickness, improvidence and desperation, the lot of the many, 
‘your plan, which you take from the Socialists and Chartists, is that 
‘the members of the House of Commons should represent poverty 
and not wealth. The necessary and inevitable consequences of this 


| * Beacon and Christian Times, November 3, 1858. 
? Birmingham Daily Post, February 2, 1859. 
* Leeds Mercury, January 20, 1859. 


156 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


iy 


—— 


must instantly be that the poor will take possession of and divide 
the wealth amongst themselves—a feeling that this ought to be 
done has been growing up amongst all classes of labourers in this 
country for several years. 


4 


Then, going on to taunt the Manchester party with their 
steady opposition to social legislation, he said: 

Of all the organized hypocrisies which were ever formed, none has 
equalled the pretext that Democracy is sought for as a means of 
improving the conditions of the operatives. . . . You build 
greatly on the ignorance of your auditors when you imagine they 
have forgotten Lord Shaftesbury’s labours in this matter and your 
opposition.! 

In this fashion did Conservative leaders envisage the 
conflict precipitated by Bright. They believed him to be 
setting class against class, and they proceeded to oppose him 
by the same sort of appeal. The new Liberalism was pro- 
jected by Bright; Tory-democracy, by Drummond. 

The charge was constantly made that Bright aimed to 
‘‘Americanize”’ English institutions, by which was meant 
republicanize. In fact, even avowed republicans saw a 
fellow-worker in him. C. C. Cattell, later president of a 
republican club in Birmingham, declared, “Paine never had 
an abler exponent than John Bright.”? Many lamented 
that he was arousing class antagonism. One paper feared 
that the old cry of “confiscation” would be heard again to 
the detriment of improved relations between capital and 
labor.2 Bernal Osborne, a Radical member of parliament, 
declared Bright had been injudicious in frightening people 
out of their wits and in setting class against class.* Even 
Cobden cautioned him in December, 1859: 


There is an apparent tendency in your speeches to advocate the 
interest of the working class as apart from the upper classes. 


* Third edition, London, 1858. 

*Mr. John Bright and Labour Representation (no place of publica- 
tion and no date, but apparently 1859). 

* Whitehaven Herald, November 6, 1858. 

* Reynolds's Newspaper, April 20, 1860. 


JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 157 


Now I am sorry to say that whenever the case is so posed, there 
is a tendency in the middle class to range themselves with those 
above them to resist a common danger.1 

The Times commented upon the campaign: “But, some- 
how or other, the more Mr. Bright talked of reform, the 
less the country seemed to desire it. He frightened and dis- 
gusted the upper classes without conciliating the lower.’? 
That the feeling of distrust of Bright was strong enough 
to be used by Palmerston as an excuse for keeping Bright 
out of the cabinet upon the defeat of the Conservatives in 
1859 is certain. He said to Cobden, “it is his attacks on 
classes that have given offense to powerful bodies, who can 
make their resentment felt.’’* 

The fact that the Financial Reformers at Liverpool, 
of whom Bright was one, were spurring up their campaign 
simultaneously with this franchise agitation seemed to give 
point to the latter in the minds of the propertied classes. 
Bright, addressing a public meeting called to launch this 
renewed effort, discoursed at length upon the injustice of 
taxation, which was heavy on industry and light on the 
land.* At the same time other Radicals were moving for 
changes inimical to the land. Locke King moved in Parlia- 
ment for a law to enforce the equal division of the real, 
as well as personal property of intestates. Palmerston de- 
clared this would destroy primogeniture and lead to the 
establishment of a republic.® 

The agitation produced a numerous crop of pamphlets, 
which attempted to discuss various theories of representa- 


tion and the danger or desirability of various proposed 





*Morley, Cobden, p. 543. 
? Quoted in Reynolds’s, April 22, 1860. 
* Morley, Cobden, p. 465. Bright’s version of the matter was that it 


was his attack on certain English institutions (speech at Birmingham 
in 1865. Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, January 19, 1865). 


“Leeds Mercury, December 3, 1859. Also Morley, Cobden, p. 543. 
* The Christian World, March 11, 1859. 


7 


158 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


amendments of the existing system. One of the most dis- 
cerning was written by Holyoake under the title, The Work- 
man and the Suffrage. Remarking upon the widespread 
fear of universal suffrage, he declared it unfounded: } 


. 


So many of the people are uninformed, prejudiced, and indifferent 
upon politics, that ignorance, animus and bigotry may be relied 
upon to vote for “things as they are.” And were votes given to all 
means would exist, and means would be used, for limiting any 
“dangerous” operations against established influences. For myself, 
I doubt the wisdom of carrying universal suffrage by popular 
force—if it could be so carried—so long as the influential classes 
deem it “dangerous”; because it would generate on their part, 
or through them, new elements of corruption and intrigue in the 
state in their endeavours to circumscribe the operation of the 
dreaded franchise . . . Universal suffrage, if adopted frankly 
by the governing classes, would work well in this country, where 
reverence for law, for rank and wealth, is the religion of the streets 
and lanes. 


Regarding the fear often expressed that workingmen would 
be elected to Parliament in great numbers, he said: 

Do not think that members of the working class will very soon find 
their way into the House of Commons. . . . The whole thing 


is so absurd that nobody but a Tory could imagine it, and nobody 
but a Whig of antique faith could believe it.2 


It is evident that behind the outward aspect of the reform 
question, now made a practical issue by Bright, appeared the 
likelihood of transformations in the political and economic 
system that were even more to be feared than Chartist 
schemes, because of their greater likelihood of success. A 
consciousness of the imminence of political realignments in 
relation to this question found frequent expression from 
1858 on. The Press, a new Conservative organ, declared 

* The Workman and the Suffrage. A Letter to the Rt. Hon. Lord 


John Russell and the Daily News, London, 1858. (2nd edit., 1859, is in 
the British Library of Political Science.) 

? Another excellent tract written by a workingman is A Working 
Man’s Dream of Reform, London, Manchester, 1859. One pamphlet 
advocating labor representation to the extent of forty or fifty members 
was Reform. Fingerposts and Beacons, London, 1859. 








JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM ee, 


that there were only two parties, the Conservatives and the 
Manchester School, and that the Whigs would have to 
choose between them. It declared that Disraeli was striving 
to unite Whigs and Tories “upon the broad understanding 
that reforms are to cement the foundations of the monarchy, 
and not attempt the anomalous paradox of uniting demo- 
cratic institutions to a defenceless throne.’! Disraeli con- 
sidered that only two leaders occupied intelligible positions, 
Derby and Bright.’ 

It is remarkable that in toss years, when attempts were 
so numerous at discovering the basic principles upon which 
party lines could be redrawn, Gladstone took no con- 
structive part. Within a decade he would reap where Bright 
had sown, yet at the time of the initiation of Bright’s final 
effort to construct a “great Liberal Party,” the man who 
was to lead it, almost to personify it, had not emerged from 
Conservatism far enough to see any need of reform® and 
was ardently defending nomination boroughs. He whose 
first government was to pass the Ballot Act voted against 
the ballot in 1858. In fact, so close was he to the Conserva- 
tives then that Derby offered him a place in his cabinet.® 
Gladstone refused, but accepted missions to the Ionian Isles 
and Corfu. He voted in favor of Disraeli’s reform bill in 
1859 and against Russell’s resolutions meant to encompass 
the defeat of the government. Yet, strange comment upon 
the devious ways of politics, when that event had taken 
place, and Palmerston was making up his cabinet, Gladstone 
accepted a place in it, though it was pledged to a reform bill 


*Quoted in Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Beaconsfield, Il. 496. 
(The article was by Bulwer-Lytton.) The author comments that Palm- 
erston saved the Whigs from having to make the choice, which did not 
come until 1886. 


? Tbid., p. 500. 

* Morley, Gladstone, I. 631. 

“Tbid., p. 521. 

°Monypenny and Buckle, of. cit., 1V. 116. 


160 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


along the lines of Russell’s resolutions. One consideration 
that helped to make this apparent inconsistency possible was 
that of Italian freedom, of which Gladstone was the ardent 
champion, and upon which he suspected the Conservatives. 
As Trevelyan puts it, “Gladstone had begun to travel by 
way of the Neapolitan prisons toward the Liberalism of his 
later years.” In fact, says one writer, this question even 
altered his views on the franchise. “Parliamentary Reform, 
when accompanied by a sympathetic attitude toward Sar- 
dinia, seemed to him a far more tolerable thing than it had 
appeared to be shortly before.” 

This issue of foreign policy was a powerful influence 
upon domestic questions in these years. It set up a barrier 
between Bright and democratic workingmen, and it was the 
cause of the first sympathy between anti-democratic Glad- 
stone and the democracy. It made it possible for democrats 
to accept the return of Palmerston with a fairly good grace. 

Turning aside for the moment from the middle-class 
phase of the reform movement, we must pause to inquire 
to what extent the working classes responded to middle-class 
overtures thus tendered. 

Workingmen had demonstrated their interest in reform 
during the election of 1857 in several boroughs, as has 
already been explained. During the next year a working- 
class franchise movement of some importance was launched 
in London. Its leading spirit was Ernest Jones. It will be | 
remembered that in the period of severe unemployment in 
1857 he had sought to bring the old Chartist message to the 
lower strata of the working classes. The failure of that 
appeal for class action to secure political and social reform — 
determined Jones upon a reversal of policy. In the autumn 

*G. M. Trevelyan, British History in the Nineteenth Century, Lon- 


don, 1922, p. 274. See also Stanmore, Sidney Herbert, II. 180, 196, for 
some evidence of interest upon Gladstone in 1858-9. 


* Stanmore, op. cit., II. 180. 


JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 161 


of 1857 he began to advocate a union of Chartists and the 
middle classes. This is the beginning of a revival of the 
political importance of this earnest Chartist leader, which 
was to continue until his death in 1869. 

The new movement took shape at a conference called by 
Jones as head of the Chartists in February, 1858. It was 
proposed to invite leading middle-class reformers and to 
submit to them as a basis of union a proposal to adopt man- 
hood suffrage and the abolition of property qualifications 
for members of the parliament.! It was to be a test, said 
Jones, of middle-class sincerity.” Those reformers who were 
interested in the Parliamentary Reform Committee were 
approached, but without avail. When the conference met, 
therefore, no men of eminence among the middle classes 
attended regularly, and the total number of delegates was 
small. The failure of the parliamentary reformers to 
respond to the overture led Jones almost to the point of re- 
nouncing his policy of codperation. The conference debated 
the matter. Washington Wilks, a democratic journalist, and 
Holyoake plead for union. A compromise motion was car- 
ried to agitate for manhood suffrage, the ballot, triennial 
parliaments, equal electoral districts, and the abolition of 
property qualifications, but not to attempt to interfere with 
other reform efforts.* 

The confused account of the Conference in Jones’s 
People’s Paper leaves many points in doubt, but it seems 
clear that, aside from Radical members of parliament, there 
was considerable interest evinced by a number of middle- 

* People’s Paper, January 2, 1858. 

* Tbid., February 6. 

*West, History of the Chartist Movement, p. 274, quoting from 
Reynolds's Newspaper (hostile to Jones) says only forty delegates at- 
tended, representing a constituency of about five hundred. This must 
mean forty Chartist delegates. A short biography of Jones, authorized 
by him, stated there were three hundred delegates (Ernest Jones. Who 


is he? What has he done? March, 1867). 
“Full account in People’s Paper, February 13, 20, 1858. 


162 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


class Radicals and democrats, whose alliance with working- 
men was to be fruitful in the subsequent agitation in the 
sixties. In fact, a glance at these names proves the con- 
ference to be what Jones claimed it to be, one of the ante- 
cedents of the great Reform League of 1865-7. Among 
them were Joseph Cowen of Newcastle, Passmore Edwards, 
Professor Newman, Washington Wilks, George Dawson of 
Birmingham, A. Trevelyan, Thomas Aveling, W. P. Roberts, 
the “pitmen’s attorney,’ John Watts, Charles Gilpin, J. 
Baxter Langley, Alderman Livesey of Rochdale, a noted 
temperance leader, E. Hooson of Manchester, prominent in 
the cooperative movement, Charles Bradlaugh, Merriman, 
and Nicholay, later on the executive of the Reform League. 
Among ex-Chartists present were Holyoake, Harney, Lin- 
ton, and a younger man, Benjamin Lucraft. Mention is 
made of the presence of a William Newton and a William 
Allan, probably of the Amalgamated Engineers. It is im- 
portant to note that an invitation to the conference had been 
extended to the trade societies. Delegates were sent by the 
West End Boot and Shoe Makers, Operative Masons (of 
Westminster), Painters and Glazers’ Society, City Opera- 
tive Plasterers, and Operative Stone Masons (Sun Lodge). 
It is significant that the trades responding were the shoe- 
makers—always radical—and the building trades, then oc- 
cupied with their nine-hour movement and suffering much 
from trade depression. 

The net result of the conference was the formation of a 
Political Reform Union,! with an executive committee of 
thirty and a managing committee of twelve, three each of 
Chartists and trade-unionists, and six middle-class men.? 


* People’s Paper, February 27, 1858. 


_ *Ibid., February 20, 1858. This account does not accord with that 
given in West, op. cit., p. 274, which says there was an Executive of one. 
In Ernest Jones, Who is he, etc., p. 11, it is stated that Jones was presi- 
dent. 


JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 163 


J. B. Langley? was made treasurer. The program was to 
be union with the middle classes, but with special agitation 
for registered manhood suffrage and the other points men- 
tioned above.’ 

Throughout 1859 the Political Reform Union seems to 
have been active. It held enthusiastic meetings for its pro- 
gram at the time that Bright was launching his household 
suffrage movement. The London correspondent for the 
Newcastle Weekly Chronicle reported that Bright’s scheme 
was not accepted by the people themselves, that the working 
classes in their meetings were speaking out for a union with 
the middle classes, but only on their own terms of manhood 
suffrage. Early in 1859 Jones held a meeting of several 
thousand in the Guildhall, presided over by the Lord Mayor 
himself, at which Bright’s bill was rejected and a resolution 
for manhood suffrage adopted.® An intelligent working- 
class contemporary wrote in his recollections concerning the 
attitude of workingmen toward reform at that time that 
the appearance of apathy on their part toward Bright’s 
measure was not an indication that they were apathetic 
toward the possession of the franchise. The fact was that 
there was “not much in any of the measures of Parliamen- 
tary reform successively produced by Lord John Russell, Mr. 
Bright or Mr. Locke King to prompt the working men of 

*He was editor of the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle for its Radical 


owner, Joseph Cowen. Later he was an officer of the Reform League 
and parliamentary candidate for Greenwich. 


* It seems that Jones’s Chartist organization did not give up its identity, 
but became a component part of the new Union. (See evidence in the 
Investigator, December 1, 1858.) Also some Chartists refused to recog- 
nize the new move in any way, but formed a “National Political Union 
for the Obtainment of the People’s Charter.” It put out its own monthly 
sheet, the National Union. See this for May for an account of the 
organization. It denounced Jones’s new move. 


* See the Investigator for November and December, 1858. 
* November 19, 26, 1858. 


* Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, February 12, 1859. Also, Ernest 
Jones. Who is he? What has he done? p. 11. 


164 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


London and the large towns which led the van in such move- 
ments, to shout and throw up their caps. Every measure 
that made rating a necessary preliminary to registration 
could be regarded by working men as only an exemplifica- 
tion of ‘how not to do it.’”’? Again, this writer said more 
specifically of Bright’s utterances on reform in 1858-9 that 
they were too undecided to gain the confidence of working- 
men. “He never seemed to know whether he advocated 
manhood suffrage, or household suffrage, or a suffrage 
limited to householders who paid a certain amount of 
rent.”* The Birmingham Daily Post early in 1859 ex- 
pressed regret at Bright’s failure to explain away criticisms 
of his bill for its restrictiveness. It declared that the rate- 
paying clauses made the measure worse than Russell’s; that it 
would not add half a million voters. A nonconformist 
paper testified to the rejection of more moderate proposals 
in public meetings, where workingmen insisted that the union 
of classes should be upon the basis of complete democracy.* 
A Conservative member asserted in parliament early in 
1859 that a workingmen’s club in Birmingham had recently 
carried by a bare majority of one a motion that Bright really 
represented them.® 

The formation of manhood suffrage associations on the 
model of Jones’s in London spread over the country. In 
Salford a meeting requisitioned by over a thousand citizens, 
chiefly operatives, carried a manhood suffrage resolution 
overwhelmingly. In Manchester an important movement 
began in 1859 under the leadership of Alderman Abel Hey- 
wood, a bookseller and publisher of radical literature who 


*Frost,Thirty Years’ Recollections, pp. 273-4. 

? Tbid., pp. 272-3. 

* February 3, 1859. 

* Beacon and Christian Times, November 17, 1858. 
° Hansard, CLIII. 705. Statement by Adderley. 

° Christian Times, April 5, 1859. 





JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 165 


“had risen from poverty by his own efforts, a man of high 
_ character and unwearied zeal for democratic principles. After 
Bright’s agitation had begun and after Disraeli had promised 
a bill, the Manchester Manhood Suffrage Association was 
formed at a meeting of four thousand persons.1 This 
organization had much vitality. In the very next election 
it brought Heywood ‘forward as a candidate, and he polled 
the amazingly large number of 5420 votes. Other organi- 
zations based upon the same democratic program were 
formed at Renfrew in January, 1859;3 at Wednesbury at 
about the same time ;* at Dudley in March;* at Rochdale ;° 
and at York.” 

In London, later in 1859, after Palmerston had returned 
to office, several political unions were formed that soon 
achieved a fairly large membership and a fair amount of 
influence among workingmen. The relation of these bodies 
to Jones’s Union is not clear. The leading spirit in these 
‘later associations was an ex-Chartist, Benjamin Lucraft, 
henceforth a significant figure in London labor politics. The 
first, the North London Political Union, was followed by 
others in South London and Westminster. A tone of earn- 
estness combined with moderation pervades the accounts of 
the activities of these bodies. The best notices of them are 
in the Ballot® and in Reynolds’s Newspaper.® These Unions 
were the immediate forerunners of the Reform League 
formed in 1865. 


* Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, November 19, 1858, quoting from 
Manchester Guardian. 

* See below, p. 183. 

* Christian Cabinet, January 12, 1859. 

* Birmingham Daily Post, February 1, 1859. 

* [bid., March 9, 1859. 

° Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, October 29, 1859. 

"Tbid., October 22, 1859. 

*See issue of August 4, 1860, for annual report of the N. London 
Union. See also January 21, February 4, March 17, May 5, 1860. 

° See May 6, 1860. 


166 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Perhaps the most vigorous of all such bodies, however, 
was that formed at Newcastle in January, 1858, under the 
leadership of Joseph Cowen, Jr.1 The occasion of its for- 
mation was the disappointment felt by the non-electors over 
the defeat of their candidate in 1857, as described above.” 
The Chartists in the borough now agreed to abandon the 
six points on condition of a united agitation for manhood 
suffrage, the ballot, and the abolition of property qualifica- 
tions. These three points were adopted as the program of 
the Northern Political Union. Its secretary was R. B. Reed, 
an active iron-worker.* Its manifesto was Chartist in tone, 


but it concluded with the statement that the association 
would accept any obtainable measure of reform “as an 


installment.’’* 

The Union carried on a vigorous campaign for member- 
ship in the towns and villages of Tyneside. The response 
was hearty everywhere, especially from workingmen. The 
movement received assistance from a few democrats of the 
middle class, such as P. A. Taylor, Washington Wilks, and 
James Stansfeld. On the day of the introduction of Dis- 
raeli’s reform bill in February, 1859, the Union presented 
petitions for manhood suffrage from forty-two towns and 
villages of Northumberland and Durham. The total number 
of signatures was 34,676, estimated at one half of the total 
adult male population of the places represented. About 
two thirds of the signers were non-electors.° The Union 
brought out P. A. Taylor for Newcastle in 1859. It con- 
tinued its activity in the face of the Palmerstonian reaction 


* Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, January 8, 15, 1858. 
2 Pp. 119-20. 

® See William Duncan, Joseph Cowen, p. 20. 

* Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, March 12, 1858. 


°Tbid., March 5, 1859. Also a pamphlet in the Howell collection, 
Petitions for Manhood Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. 


® See below, p. 182. 








JOHN BRIGHT AND REFORM 167 


till 1862, when it dissolved, only to be revived in 1866 as a 
branch of the Reform League. 

Before continuing an examination of the popular reform 
movement, we must pause long enough to glance at the 
party situation that was developing in parliament in order 
that the two may be related to each other. The Conservative 
reform bill of 1859 introduced new factors into political 
relationships and programs. 


*Duncan, Cowen, p. 21. 


CHAPTER Vi 


THE PUBLIC AND THE REFORM BILLS OF 
1859 AND 1860 

Reference has been made to the reform bill Bright was 
to introduce whenever he deemed the occasion fitting. He 
never did introduce it. Instead, two successive governments 
brought in measures. The first was Disraeli’s bill in 1859, 
the second Russell’s in 1860. It is instructive to consider 
briefly the progress of those measures in parliament and, 
more especially, to note the response of the people to them. 
The object of the inquiry is to discover, if possible, the inter- 
relation of several factors—the tactics of parliamentary 
parties, Bright’s group and their agitation in the constitu- 
encies, and the workingmen themselves. 

Derby announced upon his accession that while he saw 
no need to amend the act of 1832, yet it was dangerous to 
the country to have the question perpetually “dangling before 
the legislature’ and perpetually postponed. 

The Conservative party, like the Liberal, was in the 
fifties and sixties passing through a period of transition. 
With the abandonment of protection as a platform in 1852, 
it found itself in urgent need of another as soon as th 
coming of peace in 1856 again turned public attention t 
domestic questions. Buckle describes the party as broke 
and dispirited in 1856-7, in part because of the personal 
unpopularity of Disraeli, but in part also because libera 
ideas were fermenting within the party.” Lord Stanley 
Derby’s son, was a foremost exponent of this spirit, but i 
was Disraeli who was to interpret it to his party and guid 







* Hansard, CXLIX. 42. 
* Monypenny and Buckle, Life of Beaconsfield, IV. 58-63. 


== — SS 











THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 169 


its policies into at least a partial acceptance of it. He too, 
since his earliest political views were expressed, had aimed 
at founding a “national party,” but his national party was to 
be a union of the aristocracy and the masses of the people, 


| excluding the manufacturers, not, like Bright’s, a union of 


the manufacturers and the masses against the aristocracy.? 


His constant hostility to the manufacturers was due to the 
fact that he saw in them the enemy of the territorial interest, 
and hence of English institutions.2, In an attack on the 
_Anti-Corn Law League, he had said that rather than see 
them in power he would entrust political power to the people: 
“if we must find new forces to maintain the ancient throne 
| and immemorial monarchy of England, I for one hope we 
may find that novel power in the invigorating energies of an 


educated and enfranchised people.”* Disraeli’s willingness 
to call in the aid of the nation in government had presup- 
posed an alliance of the nation with the aristocracy against 
the manufacturers. From 1850 he was confronted with the 
prospect of an alliance of the nation with the manufacturers 


against the aristocracy. Either of two opposed policies the 


Conservatives might adopt with advantage. They could 
stand as a bulwark for English institutions against the 
threatened advance of democracy and possibly attach to 
themselves all the conservative elements in the state; or they 
could accept the imminence of democracy and declare them- 
selves ready to welcome it as widening the basis of national 
institutions and affording a firmer foundation for aristoc- 
racy, church, and throne. In other words, they could counter 


*TIbid., 11. 82 (debate on the Chartist petition in 1839). Also, on 
this, see Beer, History of British Socialism, Il. 80. For other statements 
of his views see Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., Il. 88; also Disraeli’s 
Coningsby and Sybil, which his biographers state represent his “perma- 
nent conception of what may be called the Tory Idea, and of the back- 
ground of history in which he found that idea” (II. 267). 


*Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit. II. 83. 
* Tbid., p. 369. 


7 
170 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


John Bright’s ‘““American’”’ democracy, aimed at a political 
levelling, with an English democracy, devoted to Tory ideals. 

The fact that the Conservative party in the next two 
decades followed neither the one policy nor the other con- 
sistently, but deviated from one to the other, was the result 
of the fact that it was not itself a unit as to principles and 
program. The first of the above mentioned policies was 
attended by the danger of proving to be an impossibility ; in 
that case, the democratic flood, opposed, would break the 
barriers and sweep away the ancient landmarks and with 
them the Conservative party. The second policy might also 
fail. It might merely serve as an auxiliary to Bright’s ef- 
forts. The Conservatives might assist at the creation of a 
democracy only to find it hostile to English institutions and 
the confessed guardians thereof, the Conservative party. 
The dilemma found expression in that working of liberal 
ideas within the party, to which reference has already been 
made, and efforts to combat them. A consistent policy was 
impossible for this party as well as for its opponents, who 
were divided upon the same issue. The position of party 
leaders on both sides was difficult because of the rapidly 
shifting aspect of the entire political situation. And let it 
be remembered that, with political parties and their chiefs, 
power is often as potent a consideration as principle, espe- 
cially when the prospect of power is immediate and the valid- 
ity of principles obscure. 

In 1857 Disraeli and Derby had outlined in their cor- 
respondence the two possible lines of action the Conserva- 
tives might follow, now that the question of reform had 
been raised again. Disraeli thought that the party might 
even take the initiative in reform and thereby build an en- 
during power for themselves. “Our party is now a corpse, 
but it appears to me that, in the present perplexed state of 
affairs, a Conservative public pledged to Parliamentary Re- 














THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 171 


form, a bold and decided course, might not only put us on 








our legs, but greatly help the country and serve the State.’ 
But when he proceeded to sketch the measure of reform he 





| had in mind, it proved to be very slightly in the direction of 
| democracy and designed in the frankest manner to strengthen 
the county interest. Derby, in his reply,’ outlined the con- 
trary policy of resistance to reform. Pointing to the schism 
among Liberals, the closer approach of Russell to the Radi- 
cals and his hostility to Palmerston, Derby declared it per- 
haps the best course for the Conservatives to encourage such 
dissensions and attract those of conservative tendencies into 
the lobby with themselves as often as possible in opposition 
to Radical moves. He added that he was afraid his own 
followers would oppose taking the initiative on the question 
of reform. He and Disraeli agreed as to the extent of re- 
form they would countenance in any case; they would not 
lower the qualifications for the franchise in boroughs. But 
events were soon to force the hand of the Conservatives. 
When Derby took office in 1858, Palmerston’s pledge to 
introduce a reform bill that year was fresh in mind. The 
public, explains a journal of the day, was “strongly though 
quietly” in favor of reform. To introduce a bill was the 
only way to save the government from expulsion at the will 
of Palmerston; if they did not take up the question, they 
would be compelled to resign themselves to opposition for 
the rest of their existence. Buckle says that Derby, 
Disraeli, Lord Stanley, and a large section of the party rea- 
lized this.t Consequently, the government promised a bill 
for the next session. 


*Monypenny and Buckle, of. cit., IV. 78-9. 
? Ibid., IV. 80. 


? Analysis of the situation in the Universal Review of Politics, Liter- 
ature and Science. (London, 1859, 60), May, 1860. 


*Monypenny and Buckle, of. cit., IV. 120. 


172 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


From the moment of this announcement, the independ- 
ent Radicals in the House gave fairly steady support to the 
ministry in the hope of winning from them a satisfactory 
measure. Certain of them openly declared they preferred to 
keep the present ministers rather than to reseat the Whigs. 
But when the government brought in a bill early in 1859, it 
was a grievous disappointment to reformers. It did not pro- 
pose to lower the qualification in boroughs, but only to create 
certain ‘‘fancy franchises,” such as one based upon the pos- 
session of sixty pounds in a savings bank, or one for pay- 
ing twenty pounds a year as a lodger. It would enfranchise 
the ten-pound householders in counties, but at the same time 
it would make many of them voters in boroughs rather than | 
in counties by extending the area of boroughs to take in those © 
now large urban populations living outside the boundaries of | 
existing boroughs. This would prevent these industrial — 
groups from influencing the counties. Also, with a similar 
purpose, the bill would compel those possessing forty-shilling — 
freeholds in boroughs, for which they had formerly voted 
in counties, to vote only in boroughs. This would operate 
to remove an already large urban influence from the counties. 
The bill was, therefore, plainly what Bright had warned it 
might be, a “country gentleman’s bill.” 


*Cox (Finsbury) and Roebuck so stated in debate on Disraeli’s bill 
in 1859 (Hansard, CLIII. 350, 333). It was stated in parliament that 
the government’s India Bill was saved by Radicals and that in many 
instances they received aid from Bright (Hansard, CLIV. 153). Lord 
Granville gave similar testimony (ibid., p. 47). An instance of Con- 
servative concession to the Radicals is in their permitting Locke King’s 
bill to abolish property qualifications for M.P.’s to pass practically un- 
opposed—one point of the Charter. For the debate, which revealed 
opinions upon democracy of much interest, see Hansard, CL. 1426-2094. 
Also Rose, The Rise of Modern Democracy, p. 170. An interesting 
pamphlet on the Tory-Radical alliance of these two years is called The 
Contrast; or John Bright’s Support of the Present Government Justified. 
By a Liberal M.P., London, 1859. It describes the shortcoming of the 
Whigs and their snobbish attitude to the unaristocratic elements in the 
party. 





THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 173 


Disraeli defended his retention of the present borough 
franchise by declaring that if they resorted to the “coarse 
and common expedient” of lowering the qualification the 
result would be a monotonous constituency of one class, one 
mind, “the predominance of a household democracy.”? The 
object of the government was to confer the vote upon “all 
of those to whom we thought that privilege might be safely 
entrusted.” To workingmen two new avenues to the fran- 
chise would be opened by means of the sixty-pound savings 
clause and the freehold clause.” 

It is clear enough that for the Liberals to accept this 
measure would have been to consent to the eradication of 
two important Liberal elements in the counties—the free- 
holders in boroughs, of whom it was estimated that there 
were ninety-five thousand voters in counties out of a total 
county constituency of five hundred and four thousand,® 
and those in the urbanized sections of counties. They them- 
selves would not be compensated by any large increase of 
the Liberal strength in boroughs through a generous enfran- 
chisement of workingmen. The bill was consequently at- 
tacked by all shades of Liberals on one or both of these two 
grounds—the freehold clauses and the failure to lower the 
franchise. The Radicals took up particularly the latter argu- 
ment. One declared in the debate on the second reading that 
in the three weeks following the introduction of the measure 
it had been condemned on every platform in the kingdom.* 
Francis Crossley, of the West Riding, who had supported 


* Hansard, CLII. 985; for the whole speech, pp. 966 ff. 


2The fact is that the freehold clause proposed no additional quali- 
fication. 

® Statement in a pamphlet, Speech of C. N. Newdegate, M.P., at the 
Annual Meeting of the Rugby and Dunchurch Agricultural Association, 
November 26, 1858, London, 1859. Newdegate was a prominent Con- 
servative member for North Warwickshire. It was said that a quarter 
of the electors of the Liberal West Riding were of this class (Leeds 
Mercury, April 9, 1859). 


* Alderman Salomons (Greenwich), Hansard, CLIII. 442 ff. 


174 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Derby in office in the hope of a good measure, condemned 
the bill in a speech filled with commendation of the working 
classes.1. W. J. Fox, the democratic member for Oldham,? 
and Ellice,* of Coventry, likewise pleaded the cause of work- 
ingmen. Bright declared that the bill, offering the people 
nothing, could create only anger and disgust.* Gladstone, 
sitting on the Conservative side of the House, defended the 
government and condemned the concerted Liberal attack 
upon it, but he admitted the borough suffrage should be low- 
ered and the spirit of reform should be that of trust toward 
the people.® 

The debate® elicited the expression of much doubt or | 
fear of democracy. Horsman, a Whig member for Stroud, 
declared’ that the Liberals, by their attack, were making it 
impossible to pass this or any moderate measure, and this 
would render agitation inevitable ; eventually a period of dis- 
tress would come, and then even Bright might be looked to 
as a preserver and his bill accepted as a compromise with 
angry passions. Several members referred to the great 
meetings being held over the country, which were univer- 
sally demanding either household or manhood suffrage. Lord 
Robert Cecil declared that Nottingham, Manchester, and all 
the metropolitan boroughs “had spoken in favour of every 
principle advocated by Mr. Ernest Jones.”® E. Bulwer-Lyt- 
ton, colonial secretary, stated that opinion lately expressed 
in local public meetings required something no Whig govern- 
ment could propose and no conceivable government at that 


* Hansard, CLIII. 574 ff. 

2 Tbid., CLIII. 729. 

* Ibid., CLIII. 950. 

* Ibid., CLII. 1024. 

* Tbid., CLIII. 1046-67. 

° The whole debate is in Hansard, CLII. 966-1618, and CLIII. 330 ff. 
" Ibid., CLIII. 459. ff. 

® Tbid., CLIII. 479-80. 


THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 175 


time could carry. Judging by these popular expressions 
of opinion, it would not be possible, he said, to stop short of 
manhood suffrage, if they began to transfer power to the 
working classes. The Solicitor General testified to the 
“singular unanimity” of public meetings in demanding either 
manhood or household suffrage, triennial parliaments, and 
the ballot.2, Another speaker declared the point at issue to 
be numbers versus property. Drummond declared that 
the debate had been the making of the member for Birming- 
ham; all he had to do now was to sit still, and in five years 
they would all have swallowed his bill. Lord Elcho, a 
Whig opponent of reform, having described the dangers 
that would threaten property, called upon the House “to 
resist the democratic tide which was setting in’’ while there 
was yet time. Finally, Disraeli, in concluding the debate, 
summed up the terrors of democracy in words that were re- 
membered against him less than a decade later. 


If you establish a democracy you must in due season reap the 
fruits of a democracy. You will in due season have great impa- 
tience of the public burdens combined in due season with great 
increase of the public expenditure . . . you will in due season 
have wars entered upon from passion, and not from reason, and 
you will in due season submit to peace ignominiously sought and 
ignominiously obtained, which will diminish your authority and 
perhaps endanger your independence. You will, in due season, with 
a democracy find your property is less valuable and that your free- 
dom is less complete. 


As to any reduction of the borough franchise, he declared: 


I cannot look upon what is called reduction of the franchise in 
boroughs but with alarm; and I have never yet met with any argu- 
ment which fairly encounters the objections that are urged to it. 
You cannot encounter it by sentimental assertions of the good quali- 
ties of the working classes. The greater their good qualities the 
greater the danger. 


*Ibid., CLIII. 546-559. 

eipid, CLIN, 621. 

*Ibid., CLIII. 702 (Adderley). 
*Tbid., CLIII. 849-50. 

* Ibid., CLIII. 943-47. 


176 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


He believed the national constituency “ought to be numerous 
enough to be independent, and select enough to be respon- 
sible.” This the government bill had sought through a 
variety of franchise rather than by “the introduction of the 
mere multitude, which, if once we began the reduction of 
the borough franchise, would ultimately and speedily be ac- 
complished,” for, “if you enter upon it again you will be 
forced not only to adopt the numerical suffrage 

but at once to go down to household suffrage, and introduce 
democratic elements, the consequences of which I have 
slightly traced.”’? 

One other significant aspect of opinion manifested itself 
in the debate on this reform bill; namely, the frequent refer- 
ence made to the attitude of workingmen on industrial 
questions. The two preceding years, it will be remembered, 
had seen a resumption of industrial conflicts. The miners 
were restless and were forming trade-unions and demanding 
legislation; in 1858 there had been a fierce contest in the 
flint-glass industry; the builders’ nine-hour movement had 
‘reached a critical stage by the close of 1858 and, at the time 
of this debate, strike and lock-out were in full operation. 
Reverberations of the industrial war sounded in the halls of 
parliament and weighed in the opinions there expressed con- 
cerning the desirability of granting the suffrage to the work- 
ing class. One member declared workingmen to be unsound 
on political economy.? Another pointed to the danger of 
socialism because of the wrong conception workingmen had 





* Hansard, CLIII. 1245-55. Many speakers made reference to the evi- 
dence then being gathered by a committee of the House of Lords secured 
by Earl Grey to investigate the municipal franchise since compound 
householders (the poorest class) had been admitted to it. It was be- 
lieved the evidence was damaging to the cause of workingmen in politics, 
but an examination of the report, published in 1860, reveals little of 
such evidence. It is a valuable source for both the attitude of the upper 
classes toward the working classes, and the activities of the latter. 


Ker Seymer. Hansard, CLIII. 435. 


THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 177 


of the functions of capital.1. Bright declared that the trade- 
union movement would become revolutionary if wage-earners 
were condemned to remain “‘a separate and suspected order in 
our social system.’”’? Drummond contended that if work- 
ingmen got votes they would have to have the ballot to pro- 
tect them from trade-unions, and Lord Elcho protested 
against handing over the government to the tyranny of trade- 
unions, ‘which of all tyrannies was the most grinding and 
intolerable.”* 

Russell, with the support of all the Liberal factions, 
introduced certain resolutions setting forth the principles 
upon which reform should be based. Those resolutions were 
carried, and the government resigned. Derby dissolved par- 
liament. He would appeal to the country, he declared, upon 
two issues—the difficulty of carrying on the government 
created by the opposition of small factions which could 
“combine to attack but not to govern,” and, secondly, the 
danger in leaving reform to the Liberals, who had made 
their peace with Bright and thus had embarked upon his 
“wild and visionary” schemes. As for the Conservatives, 
they felt themselves free to take up the whole question of 
reform anew; a policy of “no-policy,”’ as Granville described 
it. But upon whatever grounds the ministry hoped to 
base the election, the main question upon which it turned 
was reform.° 

Turn now from parliament to the country ;—an exami- 
nation of public opinion as expressed in public meetings and 
the press during the debate upon Disraeli’s bill and the sub- 
sequent election reveals a mounting tide of interest among 
workingmen. Never since the waning of the political ex- 


*Beresford Hope. Jbid., CLIII. 739-40. 

2 Quoted by Trevelyan (Bright, p. 280), who says trade-unions were 
much feared because of strikes. 

* Hansard, CLIII. 943. 

*Derby’s ministerial statement. Jbid., CLIII. 1266 ff. 

° The other issue was foreign policy, especially as regarded Italy. 


178 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


citement of the preceding decade had there been such wide- 
spread expression of that interest. The Newcastle Weekly 
Chronicle, now the property of Joseph Cowen, who was the | 
leading figure in the recently formed Northern Political 
Union, condemned the government bill as designed to deprive 
the masses in perpetuity of political power. Statesmen of all 
parties, even Bright, would, it declared, give the vote to 
bricks and mortar, not men.1. The Northern Political 
Union held numerous meetings in Northumberland and 
Durham. One number of the Chronicle listed fourteen meet- | 
ings in these counties in a few days, of which only five 
passed resolutions in favor of a more moderate reform than 
manhood suffrage.” | 

In Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the Midlands, the Teed 
Mercury, carefully feeling the pulse of the country, recorded 
in every number in January, just prior to the introduction of - 
the bill, meetings that demanded household suffrage, though | 
at most of them manhood-suffrage amendments were of- 
fered, and at some it was made clear that the more moderate 
measure was accepted because it alone would gain middle- 
class codperation.? These meetings of January can be 
credited to Bright’s agitation undoubtedly, and were meant 
to influence the government; but in March the meetings 
were for the purpose of expressing opinion upon the bill 
itself. The middle-class reform associations condemned it 
unanimously. At Birmingham Bright called upon an 
audience of eight thousand to enter upon such an agitation 
as would ‘‘make the tottering monopolies of aristocracy 
tremble to their very foundation.”® At Bradford, in a 


* March 5, 1859. 

? March 26. 

* Leeds Mercury, January 20, 1859 (Rochdale meeting) ; January 29 
(Halifax). 

*See Leeds Mercury for March; many meetings. 

° Tbid., March 10. 


THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 179 


_meeting of twenty-five hundred, resolutions condemning the 
government bill as an insult to workingmen and approving 
| Bright’s were put by workingmen.t| At Todmorden a man- 
-hood-suffrage motion was carried enthusiastically.2 At 
Huddersfield a workingman moved a manhood-suffrage reso- 
| lution, but, said the Mercury, it was overwhelmingly lost.? 
_At Preston, scene of the great strike of five years before, the 
motion approving of Bright’s bill was made by George 
Cowell, the organizer of that strike.t* In Leeds, meetings 
were held by wards. Workingmen appear to have partici- 
pated quite generally and usually to have supported a rating 
franchise, though not always.® Workingmen at Barnsley 
supported a manhood-suffrage amendment in an excited 
: meeting.® Norwich held a great and harmonious meeting, 
concerning which one paper says that there had been no such 
political excitement there in years.‘ At Derby a crowded 
meeting was held in the Town Hall. A workingman pre- 
sided, and most of the audience the Birmingham Post de- 
scribed as “‘of the Chartist body.”’® The same paper states 
that at Coventry, in a meeting of four thousand, the man- 
hood suffragists made it impossible to carry either their 
amendment or the original motion.® 

Most of these meetings appear to have been under middle- 
class auspices—a part of Bright’s agitation. The accounts 
of them reveal the efforts of the middle-class chairmen to 
secure a united expression from the middle and working 
classes, but in practically every meeting a manhood-suffrage 





* Tbid., March 12. 

? Tbid., March 12. 

* [bid., March 17. 

* Ibid., March 17. 

° [bid., March 10, 17. 

° Ibid., March 19. 

* Christian World, March 11. 
* March 18. 

° March 17. 


180 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 








amendment was proposed and often carried. The available| 
reports of these meetings are in the middle-class press, ani- 
mated by the same desire to produce the impression of har- 
mony among all ranks of reformers. In consideration of 
this fact, it is necessary to attribute added significance to 
those expressions of working-class opposition to the pro- 
gram of the promoters of the meetings that found their way 
into print. An admission of any large amount of dissension 
would have weakened the effect of the anti-government agi- 
tation. Many meetings limited themselves to negative reso- 
lutions of condemnation, and on these middle-class orators 
could declaim unchecked upon the insults offered to the work- 
ing classes by the “landed party.”’ Petitions against the bill] 
were rapidly signed. In Birmingham forty thousand signa- 
tures were obtained in one week.’ At the end of the first 
week’s debate the petitions altogether had received over 
one hundred eighty thousand signatures.” 

In the metropolis working-class demonstrations were 
numerous. It will be remembered that Ernest Jones had 
launched a union to unite the two classes upon a program of 
registered, residential manhood suffrage and that it had been 
promoted by Passmore Edwards, Bradlaugh, P. A. Taylor, 
and others. This union was probably still functioning at the 
time of this agitation; certainly its leaders were vigorously at 
work. Numerous working-class meetings against the bill 
were held in Hyde Park, at which Jones and Bradlaugh 
were favorite speakers.? “Much Chartist oratory” was 
heard in Islington and in Bonner’s Fields.* A meeting 
called by the Radicals at the Guildhall under the Lord May- 
or’s chairmanship clamored for Bradlaugh, but he was 


* Leeds Mercury, March 22. 

? Christian World, April 1. 

® Bonner, Life of Bradlaugh, I. 81. Birmingham Daily Post, March 
22, 1859. Jones condemned both Disraeli’s and Bright’s measures. 

* Beacon and Christian Times, March 20. 


| 
| 


: THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 181 
refused permission to speak. In Lambeth, at a “very large 
meeting” with the two borough members present, Ernest 
Jones’s manhood-suffrage resolution was carried unani- 
mously “amid tremendous cheering.”? In Shoreditch, with 
the members for Tower Hamlets present, manhood suffrage 
and all the points advocated by Jones’s Union were 
adopted.* At a similar meeting in Marylebone, which the 
local members attended, manhood suffrage was overwhelm- 
ingly approved.* Such were the proceedings in Finsbury, 
Southwark, and Westminster.° At two Greenwich meet- 
ings manhood suffrage failed of adoption.® 

_ Thus was extremist opinion, whether of the middle or 
working classes, making itself known. One nonconformist 
journal that had followed events closely asserted in the 
middle of March that a genuine agitation was in progress, 
due more, however, to anger than to interest in reform as 
such. The people felt themselves insulted and tricked, and 
the Radicals felt keen disappointment after their hopes of the 
government.‘ 

In April came the election. The two issues over which 
the people were concerned were reform and Italy. The Lib- 
eral factions in parliament had coalesced to defeat Derby. 
Bright understood that the Liberal compact called for a bill 
embodying a six-pound franchise for boroughs and a ten- 
pound qualification for counties. He stated at the opening 
of the new parliament that his so-called alliance had been 
secured on such an understanding. Thus did Bright 


*Bonner, op. cit., 1. 812. Also Beacon and Christian Times, March 16. 
? Birmingham Daily Post, March 9. 

*Tbid., March 15. 

“Christian World, March 18. 

* Beacon and Christian Times, March 16. 

* Leeds Mercury, March 17, 19. 

"Beacon and Christian Times, editorial, March 18. 

* Hansard, CLIV. 226 ff. 


182 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


abandon his own measure, which even then was being agi- 
tated for over the country. The explanation of this step 
may be that the failure of this agitation to arouse an enthu- 
siastic and united response may have convinced him of the 
futility of the Radicals’ attempting to act alone, if he had 
ever had any such intention. Yet the agitation had revealed 
enough of parliamentary and popular strength to enable the 
Radicals to put a price upon their alliance. It may at least 
be pondered whether the signal evidence of the loyalty of 
workingmen to the principles of manhood suffrage afforded | 
at public meetings may not have rendered the Radicals them- 
selves more inclined to harken to the voice of the more cau-_ 
tious elements in the party. 

A brief examination of this election with the purpose of 
discovering the part played in it by workingmen is of interest. 
They had before them two concrete proposals, Disraeli’s and 
Russell’s for a six-pound suffrage. 

The Northern Political Union under Cowen, with its 
manhood-suffrage program and large working-class con- 
stituency, brought forward P. A. Taylor for Newcastle 
against the two Whig members. Taylor canvassed the 
workingmen in their places of employment and was so active 
generally that the Liberals raised the cry that he would let a 
Tory in.1 The Union had declared that Taylor’s candidacy 
was as much for the purpose of propaganda as anything 
else.2, The polling gave him only 463 votes to 2680 for the 
next highest competitor. Immediately, the workingmen of 
the borough formed a ‘“‘Non-electors’ Association,” distinct 








* Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, April 23, 1859. 

? Ibid., April 9. 

*Ibid., May 7. There were about fifteen hundred workingmen elec- 
tors in Newcastle, but most of them were freemen, corrupt and allied 
with the Whigs (figures from a carefully compiled table in Appendix 
III of R. D. Baxter’s A Reform Bill, London, 1866; he gives the num- 
ber of working-class electors in 1866 as 1559, and of freemen, not ten- 
pound electors, as 1433). 


THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 183 


Hom the Union, with the purpose of bringing out a manhood- 
suffrage candidate at every borough election. 

In Manchester workingmen appeared as an independent 
party. The leaders of the old Anti-Corn Law League 
had formed the Lancashire Reformers’ Union, and it now, 
confirming the charges made against the League rump that 
it was still attempting to dictate Manchester politics,” se- 
lected as its candidate Thomas Bazley, recently successful in 
a bye-election. The other sitting member was Turner, who 
‘had been put in office by the anti-Bright forces in 1857. 
But the workingmen would have none of either. They 
wanted a manhood-suffrage candidate and found one in 
Alderman Abel Heywood, who had organized their Manhood 
‘Suffrage Association two years before. He was acknowl- 
edged by the press everywhere as the workingmen’s candi- 
‘date. The Bazley group was friendly toward his candida- 
‘ture; the Turner group did all it could to defeat it. Bazley 
and Turner were elected, but Heywood received the surpris- 
‘ing number of 5420 votes, the lowest successful vote exceed- 
ing his by less than two thousand.* It is worth noting that 
‘the number of workingmen electors in Manchester, accord- 
ing to an estimate for 1866, was 5822.4 They considered 
that in this election they had won a signal triumph.°® 

: In Leeds, Forster stood again, but this time not as a can- 
didate of the non-electors definitely, as in 1859. He stood 
for no broader reform than that proposed by Russell.° The 








 * Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, May 28. 


| ?F. P. Rickards, Manchester and John Bright, London, 1859,—a 
"pamphlet which speaks of the tyranny of the League, able to ‘make and 
-unmake M.P.’s at will. Also Leeds Mercury, May 7, 1859. 


: * Full account in Leeds Mercury, May 3. 
*R. D. Baxter, Ad New Reform Bill. Appendix III. 


*So stated in a pamphlet, Manchester Reform and Manchester Re- 
formers. . . . Inaletter to Mr. Alderman Heywood, by Wm. Stokes, 
2d edit., Manchester, 1859. (In Manchester Free Reference Library.) 


° Leeds Mercury, April 28, 30. 


184 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Conservative candidate here, who was elected, apparently 
had a large working-class support.? | 

A few other significant features of this election may be 
noted. At York, A. H. Layard, beaten by a small margin, 
was strongly supported by workingmen.? At Bramley, 
party unity could be secured only by allowing both electors 
and non-electors to participate in the choice of the candi-| 
date.* At Huddersfield great excitement attended the can- 
vass of E. A. Leatham, a relative of Bright. His speeches 
were strong pleas for workingmen’s rights. When his vic- 
tory was threatened after the polling by a petition to unseat 
him, the non-electors met in central and district committee 
rooms to raise funds with which to defend his seat. They 
marched through the town with banners bearing the words, 
“Leatham the friend of real reform and champion of the 
people’s rights.”* An equally warm support seems to have 
been given to a brother, who was elected for Wakefield in 
the West Riding.® | 

At Oldham, an interesting situation developed. Two 
years before, Fox, a democrat, but of the Manchester School 
in economics, had been defeated by Cobbett, a Conservative 
advocate of the Ten Hour Law and other factory meas- 
ures. Now Cobbett was in turn condemned for his vote 
in favor of Disraeli’s reform bill.‘ His seat was secured by 
T. H. Hibbert, who possessed both keys to the sympathy of 
the working classes. He believed in manhood suffrage and 
the ballot and also advocated legislation with regard to hours 









*A body of five hundred workingmen accompanied him to the 
hustings. 

* Layard testified to this in 1860. See Reynolds’s, December 9, 1860. 

* Leeds Mercury, April 7. 

“ Tbid., July 21, September 13. 

° Tbid., August 2. 

* See above, pp. 117-18. 

7 Leeds Mercury, April 9, describes a meeting to condemn Cobbett 
and pronounce for manhood suffrage. 





THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 185 


of labor, and sanitary and legal reform. Kidderminster, 
scene of working-class riots against Lowe in 1857, had now 
forced him out, and popular favor was centered upon the 
man who had defended the rioters upon the former occa- 
sion.” 

In the metropolis few contests took place. Those bor- 
oughs which had established their name as ultra-radical— 
Finsbury, Tower Hamlets, Southwark, Marylebone—main- 
tained their reputation. A few gains were made at the ex- 
pense of moderate Liberals. A Conservative journal 
remarked on the question of “playing to the mob” in demo- 
cratic constituencies: “‘a conscientious man does stop some- 
where but a metropolitan member will promise anything you 
please.”* That non-electors played a big part in electoral 
campaigns there is beyond question. In the hearings before 
the Lords’ Committee,* then sitting ostensibly to investigate 
the working of the municipal franchise, with special regard 
to corruption and intimidation, but in reality to throw light 
on the probable operation of a democratic franchise for the 
nation, an electoral agent in the metropolis testified that 
about eighty per cent. of those present at political meetings 
there would usually be non-electors and that their interest 
was as great as that of the electors. 

That the prospect of a six-pound franchise was not cal- 
culated to create enthusiasm among the metropolitan work- 
ing classes is apparent upon a consideration of facts brought 
out by Gathorne Hardy, a member of the government, in the 
debate upon the Conservative bill. Eighty per cent. of the 
houses in the metropolis already conferred a vote under a 
ten-pound qualification. Furthermore, even straight house- 


*See Birmingham Daily Post, April 21, 1859, for his platform. 
* Christian World, April 15. 

*The Constitutional Press, June, 1859, p. 194. 

*See above, p. 176, note 1. 


186 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


hold suffrage would not there enfranchise the body of artis- 
ans, because they were technically lodgers, not householders. 
In Marylebone, for instance, a household franchise would 
benefit not more than one per cent. of the artisans.1 This 
situation in London and a few other large towns must be 
borne in mind always in considering the attitude of work- 
ingmen in those places toward the various reform propo- 
sals. 

Simultaneously with the debate on the reform bill and | 
the election, the Austro-Sardinian question reached a crisis. 

















This question increased the pro-Liberal sympathies of work- 
ingmen, for they believed the Conservatives to be unfriendly 
to Italian national aspirations. Thus, on the two counts of 
reform and foreign policy, the people found against the Con- 
servatives. Again Palmerston’s shortcomings in domestic 
affairs had to be set over against his popular attitude toward 
Italy. 

When the new parliament met, Disraeli, in his speech on 
the address, admitted that the Conservative reform bill had 
been rejected and that the election showed that the borough 
franchise would have to be altered to admit the working 
classes.” In view of that fact, he declared the Conservatives — 
to be “perfectly prepared to deal with that question 
by lowering the franchise in boroughs, and by acting in that 
direction with sincerity” so as to effect a real settlement.* 
To this facile adoption of the “coarse and common expedi-_ 
ent” of lowering the franchise, Bright rejoined with a decla- 
ration of no confidence and a proclamation of the Liberal 
reconciliation on the basis of Russell’s proposed six-pound 
measure.* 


* Hansard, CLIII. 1104-5. 


* Disraeli was much disappointed in the way the boroughs voted 
(Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., 1V. 233). 


* Hansard, CLIV. 139. 
*Tbid., CLIV. 226 f£. 


THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 187 


One other aspect of the election of 1859 should not fail 
of notice. There is some evidence that it was the occasion of 
the initiation of Disraeli’s policy of improving the party or- 

‘ganization in populous centers, which was to contribute so 
effectively toward securing to Conservatives some of the 
fruits of their democratic measure of 1867. The Constitu- 
tional Press! discussed this problem after the election with 
reference to the metropolis in such a way as to indicate that 
efforts had been started to rescue certain of these boroughs, 
which never were known to “return a gentleman.”’ Tower 
Hamlets was to be wrenched from its “desperate Liberalism,” 
Westminster cleansed of its ‘“‘reputation of a self-seeking 
‘democracy.’’ The article stated that Marylebone and the 
City had already been successfully influenced through revis- 
jon in the registration courts. The Constitutional Party, it 
declared, intended to set up a registration society in every 
borough to continue these party efforts. Charges of unpre- 
cedented use of money by Conservatives were widely made. 
Punch sketched Derby parodying Peel: “The Battle of the 
‘Constitution must be bought in the Registration Courts.” 
_ Palmerston’s coalition ministry did not include Bright, 
who, men had professed to believe, held the key to the Lib- 
eral situation.*? His exclusion was an ominous portent for 
‘reform. The Whigs would not go beyond Russell’s six- 
pound franchise, nor would they go even so far if they could 
: find a loophole of escape. The European question permitted 
them to postpone the matter for a time; then Palmerston and 
the Times whipped up a French panic, as many believed, to 
‘divert attention from reform.* Bright declared that the 





*November, 1859. 

* Quoted in Leeds Mercury, May 5, 1859. 

®Tt did include Milner Gibson, however, and Cobden declined a 

place in it. : 

| * Trevelyan, Bright, p. 284, and W. N. Molesworth, History of Eng- 
land, 1830-1874, III. 146, 169. 


: 
‘ 
: 





188 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


oligarchy would consider a war with France a cheap price 
to pay for a few years’ respite from the question. 

Finally, when, in March, 1860, the government intro- 
duced its bill for a six-pound borough franchise, it met with 
scant favor, was encumbered with obstructions that the gov- 
ernment made little effort to prevent, and was withdrawn in 
June. 

And yet the whole tone of the debate on this measure 
was different from that of any preceding debate on the ques- 
tion. It possessed at once a character of indifference and 
of deepest concern. Members knew that this particular bill 
was not to be taken seriously, but they also knew that the 
whole question was approaching a critical and more danger- 
ous stage. An intense and newly augmented dread of con- 
ferring political power upon the working classes is evident 
throughout the debate. The reason, beyond question, was 
that the builders’ and other recent strikes had made trade- 
unions for the first time a reality for conservative England. 
Their power, their efficiency, their apparently easily aroused 
sense of solidarity, and their heterodox opinions on wages 
and hours, miners’ legislation, and the like, were all stagger- 
ingly manifest to the world in 1858-60. A laissez faire 
England, a hitherto middle-class and aristocratic England, 
was called upon to enfranchise workingmen, who were carry- 
ing on a conflict which was regarded as a class war as truly 
as Chartism had been, and far more ominous, because more 
efficient. Furthermore, the codperation between working- 
men and Bright’s followers, chiefly with the object of fiscal 
reform, was not reassuring. To the propertied classes it 
meant only the class war from another angle. The con- 
servative reaction to the situation, as it thus revealed itself, 
was to stiffen the ranks of opposition, to draw closer the 
cordon of property against the threatening advance of democ- 


——— 


me 




















THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 189 


racy, and thereby to save English aristocratic institutions 


based upon property. An overwhelming majority of the 
_ House of Commons, by tacit consent, set themselves to hold 
_ the line for as long a period as they might be able. 


Much evidence can be adduced to substantiate these ob- 
servations. In the first place, it is enlightening to examine 
the debate in parliament for the purpose of discovering the 
attitude toward trade-unionism there revealed. Disraeli’s 
opening attack on the bill pointed to recent events as proving 


the power of combination and discipline possessed by the 
_working classes who were now to be admitted into the con- 


stitution in a body. They would act as a unit, because their 
“opinion, feelings and habits are identical.” If they were 
admitted, counterpoises reckoned on the basis of the pay- 
ment of direct taxes were’an absolute essential.1 Ker Sey- 
mer, of Dorsetshire, declared it impossible to forget recent 


_ events in the building trades and the constant strikes ; Potter 


had recently actually addressed his ‘“‘poor dupes” in the lan- 
guage of triumph. Such unintelligent action on the part of 
workingmen, he said, struck many with uneasiness.2 An- 
other member quoted at length from a pamphlet by Potter 
on the builders’ strike and deduced similar evidence of false 
economics from Dunning’s pamphlet on trade-unions.? 
Lord Robert Montague used the late strikes as damning evi- 
dence; workingmen, he said, had much to avenge against 
capitalists. Lord Robert Cecil referred to the strength of 
trade-unions and to Bright’s recent advice to them to act 
politically,» which Lord Robert was confident they would 


* Hansard, CLVII. 842-6. 

* Tbid., CLVII. 1085. 

*Rt. Hon. J. Whiteside, ibid., CLVII. 1103-5. 
“Tbid., CLVII. 2200. 

® Noted in Reynolds's Newspaper, January 22, 1860. 


190 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


do by combining to throw off the burden of taxation, which 
Bright also condemned.* . 

Adam Black, a Liberal of Edinburgh, whose name was | 
henceforth anathema to workingmen, denounced their pas- 
sion, their ready acceptance of such delusions as the possi- 
bility of receiving ten hours’ pay for nine hours’ work, and | 
their tyranny over each other, as demonstrated by Potter’s 
influence. Trade-unions would ruin English manufactures. 
In the recent election, he stated that he had been asked if he 
would favor an eight-hour bill. “I told them to their faces 
that the putting of such a question only showed the danger 
of giving them the franchise.” He doubted if members 
were aware of the number of trade-unionists—six hundred 
thousand, said Potter—and all under the command of a 
small, energetic executive.” 

From a Liberal member for Salisbury came a similar 
argument. If this bill passed, no man could hope to be elected 
who would not promise an eight-hour law. A Berkshire 
member predicted that if workingmen were sent to parlia- 
ment time would be wasted in discussions of wages, capital, 
and labor, and “the grievances of journeymen bakers, who 
disliked night work,” and other matters “which did not lie 
within the province of legislation.’”* Du Cane, of North 
Essex, read an article from the Weekly Dispatch which cited 
the builders’ strike as evidence of the close understanding 
that existed among trade societies and all working-class 
organizations. 


Some of them possess an organization so perfect that in a few 
hours the Central Council could set in motion every affiliated branch 
throughout the empire. It is on these classes the franchise is about 
to be conferred. Who or what can stand before them? They will 


* Hansard, CLVII. 2213. 
2 Tbid., CLVILM 137 i. 
3 Tbid., CLVIII. 166 ff. 
“Tosa: CHVILI 352. 

















THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 191 


poll to a man—will they not all poll one way? It is notorious that 
the middle classes do not possess the cohesion and spirit of union 
which support the power of the working classes. Henceforward, 
for weal or woe, the Democratic element reigns in England.1 


In the House of Lords, Derby pointed to the simulta- 
neous introduction of a reform bill and of Gladstone’s bud- 
get, which was based on the assumption that taxes were too 
heavy on the lower classes and too light on the upper, and 
which involved a deficit to be met after reform. He be- 
lieved the new voters would follow agitators and were them- 
selves unable to form correct political judgments. The ex- 
isting electorate, he declared, were filled with the “utmost 
apprehension” over the prospective effects of the measure. 

If these debates afford a revelation of a sharper fear of 
an extension of the franchise than had been felt before and 
of trade-unions as the cause, testimony of the same kind can 
be added from other sources. A pamphleteer of Manchester 
would have allowed no trade-unionist a vote.* The Eco- 
nomist in August, 1859, asserted that the strike then raging 
proved the wisdom of admitting a portion of the working 
classes to the franchise, but the danger of their predomi- 
nance. The Westminster Review, commenting upon the 
report of the Executive Committee of the Master Builders’ 
Association, expressed its fear that trade-unions would act 
politically for such objects as a reduction of hours. “It 
becomes a grave question how far we may safely give polit- 


* Hansard, CLVIII, p. 406. 

? Hansard, CLVII. 1961 ff. In 1865, in a debate upon a reform bill 
introduced by Baines, Horsman pointed to the change in the attitude of 
members of parliament toward reform that was manifested from 1860 
on. Only in that year, he declared, did members begin to look upon a 
reform bill as a practical business question, and as such to oppose it. 
This attitude had been much intensified by 1865, he said. (Quoted in 
an editorial in the Times of May 10, 1865.) 

’“Reform: Look before you Leap,” quoted in Newcastle Weekly 
Chronicle, February 12, 1859. 

* Quoted in Leeds Mercury, August 30, 1859. 


192 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ical power into the hands of those who entertain views so 
erroneous respecting fundamental social relations. ; 
Men who are ready to render up their private liberties to 
the despotic rulers of trade-unions, seem scarcely independent 
enough to exercise political liberties.” They would try to 
gain by political power what they now seek to gain by private 
organization. Furthermore, it declared, the mischievous 
activities of reformed municipalities of late, in providing at 
public expense baths, parks, libraries, etc., thereby increasing 
the burdens on the rich, should act as a warning.t The 
editor of the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle remarked a few 
years later: 


When the working men of the metropolis showed their skill in 
combination during the great strike in the building trades, the | 
Tories frightened the timid occupants of the opposition benches by 
conjuring up a spectacle of terror and anarchy.2 


Perhaps the most valuable evidence is that brought out | 
by Earl Grey’s committee on the elective franchise in 1860. — 
Many inquiries were put as to the actual or probable political 
activity of trade societies or their members. R. D. Baxter, 
an authority on electoral statistics and those pertaining to 
the working classes, testifying as to Sheffield, said he believed 
that if matters arose specially affecting artisans, or in case 
trade-unions were to attempt to send one of their own num- 
ber to parliament, the electorate, if increased by a six-pound 
franchise, would be in the hands of a “knot of men in a 
public house” like those who were directing the builders’ 
strike in London. Also, the working classes, he stated, had 
“entirely different objects in view as regards restrictions on 
labour, from what the educated classes have.”* A solicitor 
of Leeds believed trade-unionists would act together in a 


* April 1, 1860. 


? September 16, 1864. 
* Report, pp. 176-8. 





THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 193 


time of excitement or disputes with masters, and could and 
would control elections. He admitted, however, that they 
never had acted politically in Yorkshire.1 A Conservative 
witness feared workingmen would, without question, elect 
“factory delegates” to parliament.2, Henry Ashworth, cot- 
ton-spinner of Bolton and close student of labor problems, 
after testifying to the intense interest the operatives and 
miners of Lancashire took in politics, declared that even 
now, when employment became scarce, they talked of Fear- 
gus O’Connor and universal suffrage, believing their con- 
dition to be an affair of government. He believed they 
would make the question of wages and hours a political one.* 
Edward Baines, M.P. for Leeds and a leading nonconform- 
ist, feared the same danger.* So also did a Liberal election 
agent of London, who pointed to the attempt of the builders 
in their strike to influence members of parliament.® 

__ Trade-union political activity was a possiblity, then, to 
be feared on its own account; add to it the fact that trade- 
unions and Bright appeared to be in political alliance, and 
the situation became ominous indeed. It did not matter 
that the alliance was not wholly successful. Many did not 
realize that. Most of the upper and middle classes saw in 
the situation a menace to property. One contemporary de- 
clared that Bright’s agitation had changed the whole aspect 
of affairs; that he had “frightened into sincerity many a 
man whose Democratic theories were merely Bunkum” by 
boldly disclosing that his aim was to dethrone one class and 
install another, thereby shifting the basis upon which the 
Constitution rested.© In the debate in parliament one 


* Ibid., pp. 217-8. 
* Ibid., p. 130. 
*Ibid., pp. 455-466. 
| * Ibid., pp. 446-453. 
ie Lbtd., pp. 227-230. 
| °Bentley’s Quarterly Review, March, 1859. 


194 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


member considered that Bright’s taxation agitation “i 
tended a graduated property tax. 

In view of the amount of evidence to that effect, it is 
not a hasty assumption to declare that in 1859-60 the re- 
form question in parliament and among the majority of 
electors took on a new aspect of danger to property and 
institutions that stiffened the resistance offered to it by the 
moderate and the propertied classes. A common sentiment 
of antagonism to any reform, as dangerous in itself and as 
likely soon to lead to a wider extension of the suffrage, 
possessed the great body of the politically significant classes. 
In 1861 Russell stated in parliament his opinion that for 
two or three years past—“‘especially last year’’—the middle 
classes had radically altered their view of reform; “they are 
not in favour of the admission of the working classes into 
the number of those who hold the franchise, and that oppo- 
sition given the bill last year proceeded far more from the 
middle classes than from either the House of Lords or from 
any portion of the upper classes of this country.’* Late 
in 1860 Gladstone remarked in a letter to Graham upon 
“how much the tone of ultratoryism prevails among a large 
portion of the liberal party.”* And Lord Stanley wrote to 
Disraeli that business men generally were afraid of Russell’s 
bill and that the country was full of Conservative opin 
disguised as moderate Liberalism.* Bouverie, Liberal 
member for Kilmarnock, explained the defeat of Russell’ 
bill as due to the following causes: lack of a favorable pub- 
lic opinion; alarm at the prevalence of strikes and a widely, 
held belief that trade-unions were going beyond their legiti- 
mate sphere by interfering with the natural laws of trade} 














* Hansard, CLVII. 1088. 

4 Tord., CLXI. 1922: 

5 Morley, Gladstone, II. 37. 

* Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., 1V. 272, note 2. 























THE REFORM BILLS OF 1859 AND 1860 195 


and, finally, John Bright’s speeches, in which he put forth 
the idea that social inequalities and inequalities in wealth 
were the result of political inequality, and in which he 


treated reform as an issue between classes.! 


The situation in parliament and in the country, therefore, 
for a few years after 1860, made possible, even demanded, 
an interregnum like that during Palmerston’s last ministry. 
Because his face was set against all change in existing insti- 


tutions, Palmerston reigned over acquiescent Conservatives 


as well as Liberals. For the next five years, he personified 
the House of Commons, elected to enact reform, but killing 
it with neglect. Factions had for the time ceased, and the 


“majority opinion was more honestly expressed than when 


Conservatives fought Whigs, while both knew that they 
were as one upon the chief issue of domestic politics. 

But an agreed and harmonious parliament could have 
only a momentary existence. The great forces out of doors 
were not agreed and not harmonious. The issue that had 
meant parliamentary chaos during the decade of the fifties 
was in 1865 to break up the calm waters of a Palmerstonian 


régime. Again men had to take up in all seriousness a 
| position toward the question of democracy. The age of 
Gladstone was ready to succeed to the age of Palmerston. 


Only when the new factional strife in parliament had re- 
sulted in a settlement of the question could the old parties 
come back into their own as the embodiment of genuine 
principles and policies. 

The unenfranchised had evinced little interest in Rus- 
sell’s bill. It is significant that from this time on working- 
men leaders, especially in London, took a more decided 
stand for manhood suffrage as the only suffrage adequate 
to enfranchise their class. They organized manhood-suf- 


* Reynolds's Newspaper, November 4, 1860. 


196 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


frage associations that continued active until they were 
absorbed by the national manhood-suffrage Reform League, 
formed in 1865. In fact, political agitation among working- 
men, both trade-unionist and non-trade-unionist, continued 
at an accelerated pace from 1860 on. The strictly trade- 
unionist phase was inaugurated by the builders’ strike and 
the formation of trades’ councils. All phases were stimu- 
lated by contact with foreign workmen and interest in liber- 
ation movements in other lands. To these developments let 
us now turn our attention. 









































CHAPTER VAM 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS IN THE SIXTIES 


| The nine-hour movement among the building trades and 
the struggle that it precipitated in 1859-60 proved to be 
| the beginning of a new era in the history of trade-unionism. 
From that date to the date of their great political victory of 
1875-6, the history of trade organizations is one of con- 
stantly widening influence in both the industrial and the polit- 
ical sphere. This chapter is an effort to describe the growth 
of this influence during the sixties with special reference to 
_ its political aspect and its contribution to the development of 
| the particular political situation out of which the Reform Act 
of 1867 came. Along with trade-union activities are con- 
sidered also any significant similar movements among the 
working classes at large. The proportionate part played by 
trade organizations or their members was noticeably larger 
than at any period since the middle of the century. 

It is well first to survey briefly the social and intellectual 
condition of the working classes in order to be able the better 
to judge of them as factors in society and politics. First, 
as to their wages.‘ Conditions in Lancashire may be cited 
as an example. David Chadwick? in 1860 estimated that the 
_ wages of nearly all classes of factory operatives in Lancashire 
had risen from ten to fifteen per cent. in the past twenty 
years. Quoting Henry Ashworth, he says that in 1850 an 


* Statistics compiled from various sources can be found in Park, Eng- 
lish Reform Bill of 1867, ch. ii. 

*D. Chadwick, On the rate of Wages in Two Hundred Trades and 
Branches of Labour in Manchester and Salford and the Manufacturing 
District of Lancashire during the Twenty Years from 1839 to 1859, etc. 
Read before the Statistical Society of London. 2nd edit., London, 1860. 
These figures were used by Bowley in his Wages in the Umited Kingdom 
in the Nineteenth Century, but there is a slight variation. See table for 
Manchester after pp. 118 and 122. 






198 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


average spinner’s wage was nineteen shillings; in 1859 it 
was twenty-five shillings a week. In the silk trade, the | 
average rise had been ten per cent. since 1849. In such un- 
skilled trades as calico printing, dyeing, and bleaching, how- 
ever, there had been a decrease. Among the building trades, | 
bricklayers’ wages had risen about ten per cent. since 1849 
(with a slight decrease in hours) ; stonemasons’ about sever 
per cent.; plasterers’ and painters’ slightly more; and join- | 
ers’ wages had not risen at all. In the mechanical trades, 
reckoning since 1839, wages had risen from six and one-half | 
per cent. to fourteen per cent. in some branches, and to nearly 

fifty per cent. in the case of boiler makers, but had decreased 
as much as fifteen per cent. in others. Chadwick’s figures 
show no increase in the ten years before 1859 for screwers, 

drillers, tin-plate workers, millwrights, moulders, wire work-_ 
ers, cabinet makers, coach builders, printers, engravers, 
clockmakers, leather workers, paper makers, paper hangers, 
glass makers, bakers, tailors, coopers, wheelwrights, and gas- _ 
men. In fact, many had suffered a decrease. Miners’ 
wages in the Lancashire district had fallen very low in 1849 — 
and by 1859 had been restored practically to what they had 
been in 1839. ? 

Chadwick’s discussion also included an estimate of the 
decrease since 1839 in the price of food, which he calculated 
absorbed nearly two thirds of the weekly wage of a skilled” 
workman with a family of three. This decrease he placed 
at twenty per cent., or a saving of fourteen per cent. of the 
income. Most of this decrease, however, had taken place by 
1850. During the decade of the fifties prices had been 
steadily rising. 

None of these figures take into consideration periods of 
unemployment. Another statistician figures unemployment 
percentages in the leading organized trades as 1.61% of the 
membership in 1860, 4.28% in 1861, 7.81% in 1862, 5.74% 

















—————— a eee 





| 


| TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 199 


in 1863, 2.56% in 1864, and 8.51% in 1868. At that point 
there was a steady drop until the lowest point was reached 
in 1872.1 

__ As to London, Bowley gives the weekly wage of an 
Jartisan as 36s in 1867, having risen from 28s in 1833.° 
|The provincial artisan received about 27s in 1867; the town 
laborer, 20s; and the agricultural laborer, 14s. Baxter esti- 
‘mated the amount of national income that went to a skilled 
worker in 1867 as £50 a year; to a lower grade of worker 
as £33 and 10s. Taking the wages of 1890 as 100, Bowley 
gives the index figures for 1840-50 as 60, for 1850-60 as 
65, for 1860-70 as 75.4 All of these figures show an im- 
provement, though not to a great extent. 

| Savings bank deposits had increased between 1842 and 
1857 by £9,290,405, and the number of depositors by 485,- 
268. In 1862 there were a hundred thousand members of 
four hundred retail cooperative societies.® 

The advance of workingmen in social and intellectual 
‘conditions had been considerable since 1850. The first work- 
jingmen’s college had been established at Sheffield in 1842. 
Others had followed, and in 1867 about half of their stu- 
‘dents were estimated to be genuine workingmen.® In 1861 
there were ninety schools of design with 15,483 pupils, large- 
‘ly of the working classes.7 In 1867 it was said that the pupils 
| of two hundred and twenty schools of science were all from 








i 
*G. H. Wood, Some Statistics of Working Class Progress Since 
| 1860, London, 1900. 
*A. L. Bowley, Wages in the United Kingdom in the Nineteenth 
Century, London, 1900, p. 70. 

* Quoted in Bowley, op. cit., p. 65. Unskilled workers’ share was 
twenty-four pounds ten shillings. 
iene OP. cit., p. 126. 
en Ss. ae B. Webb, The Consumers’ Codperative Movement, London, 

p. 
*j.M a and L. Jones, The Progress of the Working Classes, 
/ 1832- 1867, London, 1867, p. 177. 


} 
| "Tbid., p. 160. 











200 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 







these classes.‘ As to elementary education, the proporti 
of day scholars to the population in England and Wales i 
1851 was one in 8.36; in 1858 it was one in 7.7. The average 
daily attendance at schools rose from 531,210 in 1857 te 
901,750 in 1865.2, Between 1841 and 1862, the proportion 
of men who signed the marriage register with a mark f 
from 32.7% to 23%, and of women from 48.8% to 28.5%.4 
Chadwick, however, tells a worse story for the cotton dis- 
tricts. Of fifty thousand Lancashire operatives examinet 
by Factory Commissioners in 1856, 83% could read, but 
only 38% could write. Ludlow and Jones concluded their 
careful study of conditions in 1867 with the assertion that 
“the testimonies to the improvement in the character of " 
working population generally by means of education are si 
abundant that in reference to them it is puzzling to know 
where to begin, or where to leave off.’”® 














Public libraries maintained out of local rates had oa 
authorized by law in 1850, and since then had been estab- 
lished in practically all large towns. Certain trade societies 
maintained libraries of their own. Newspaper circulation 
had greatly increased since the removal of the newspaper 
tax in 1855.° The number of newspapers in the United 
Kingdom by 1861 had increased by four hundred. In one 
hundred and twenty-three towns papers had been established 
where none had existed before 1855. Of the two hundred 
and fifteen newspapers in London, seventy were in 1861 
selling at two pence or less. In Derbyshire, Lancashire, 
Nottinghamshire, Worcestershire, and Leicestershire, the 


* Ludlow and Jones, op. cit., p. 162. 
? Tbid., p. 149. 
°Tbid., p. 149. 
*On the Rate of Wages, etc., p. 7. 
MOP palo. 
® All of the following figures are taken from a pamphlet: Newspail 
Press Census for 1861, London, 1861. 


’ 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 201 


number had doubled since 1855. In the midlands all the 
newspapers were cheap except one. In the northern coun- 
‘ties ninety-eight papers had been started since 1855, and all 
were cheap (selling for two pence or less). Of the total 
number of two hundred and four papers in the North, one 
hundred and thirty-five were of this class. As to politics, 
‘there were in all England two hundred and eighty-five 
Liberal papers, one hundred and twenty-six Conservative, 
eighty-five independent, and three hundred and _ thirteen 
neutral. 

Mechanics’ Institutes, of which there were probably one 
thousand two hundred in 1861, with a membership of two 
hundred thousand, were especially numerous in Lancashire 
and Yorkshire. .In 1860 the “Yorkshire Union of Me- 
‘chanics’ Institutes” had one hundred and twenty-seven con- 
stituent bodies. In Leeds it was said that one out of every 
eighty-four of the population belonged, and in Huddersfield 
one out of every twenty-one. These Institutes had tended 
everywhere to become tradesmen’s or middle-class clubs.” 
Yet their influence upon workingmen was attested by Rev- 
erend Henry Solly, a lifelong worker among the working 
classes, who said that in his experience invariably the 
‘mechanics of superior education and aspirations proved to 
have received much from these institutions.? A new type 
_of organization, the workingmen’s clubs, chiefly for whole- 
some amusement, was becoming an important social influ- 
‘ence by 1865. 

| A modification of the wretched living conditions in 
‘populous sections of large cities had been begun by the 
Public Health Act of 1848, which set up a central Board of 
Health to advise and assist local boards whose creation was 














*Working Men’s College Magazine, October 1, 1860. 

i ? Henry Solly, in These Eighty Years, 11. 157, London, 1893, describes 
_ how operatives were shouldered out. 

* Ibid., II. 161, note. 

















202 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


empowered.’ By the end of 1853 one hundred and eighty- 
two local boards had been set up, and the central board, in 
spite of constant obstruction by vested interests, was able 
to accomplish some slight good. The housing problem 
received its first grudging attention in 1851 with Ashley’s’ 
Common Lodging House Act. In 1855 overcrowding was 
prohibited in a valuable Nuisance Removal Act, which was 
extended in 1866 to compel local authorities to condemn 
unfit buildings and build new ones for working-class dwell- 
ings. The Public Works Loan Commission could lend 
money for this purpose, secured by the local rates.? But 
until the passing of the legislation of 1875, only the barest 
beginning had been made in the direction of rendering the 
poorer sections of cities fit for decent habitation. 

A survey of the conditions prevailing in the early sixties 
discloses a limited amount of improvement and a more hope- 
ful outlook for the future. But it would be an error to 
overrate the amelioration wrought by the two decades since 
the hungry forties. Available statistics apply chiefly to the 
upper ranks of labor. The vast majority, unorganized and 
subject to each slight variation of economic conditions, 
could not yet sing paeans to English prosperity. These 
facts must be borne in mind as the background against 
which to sketch political developments. 

We may now resume the narrative of working-class 
political activities between 1860 and 1867. Special emphasis 
should be placed upon their most significant aspect, the 
participation therein of trade-unions and their members. 


*G. Slater, The Making of Modern England, pp. 166 ff. 

7E. R. Dewsnup, The Housing Problem in England, Manchester, 
1907, chapter vi; table of these Laws, p. 89. The extension of the 
Nuisance Act in 1866, and further amendment in 1867-8, created much 
alarm. The Morning Star said it proposed a revolution (February 22, 
1866). In parliament one member called it a leaf from the book of 
Louis Blanc, and feared it would end in ateliers nationaux (English 
Leader, February 23, 1867). 





TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 203 


The chief reason for this increasing participation was 
the legal restrictions under which trade societies rested. 
Particularly obnoxious were the Master and Servant Law 
and the application to trade disputes of the common law of 
conspiracy. Furthermore, trade-unions could claim the 
rights of legal bodies only by a falsification of their rules so 
as to be brought under the Friendly Societies’ Act. And 
constantly they rested under the apprehension that hostile 
legislation might at any moment place trade-unions under 
‘such restrictions as to destroy them completely. 

The builders’ strike was the opening of a new political 
movement on the part of the trades. Out of it grew the 
London Trades’ Council, whose rules declared its duties to 
be “to watch over the general interests of labour, political 
and social, both in and out of Parliament.”! Within four 
years the council had become the organ of the small group 
of national trade-union officials with headquarters in Lon- 





' don, who from 1860, in cooperation with certain provincial 


leaders and councils, guided the political action of trade- 
-unions.2 These men-—the Junta and their allies—turned 
to this method of emancipating the worker, rather than to 
a sole dependence upon industrial strife. 


They believed that a levelling down of all political privileges, and 
the opening out of educational and social opportunities to all classes 
of the community, would bring in its train a large measure of 
economic equality. Under the influence of these leaders the London 


| Unions, and eventually those of the provinces, were drawn into a 


_ whole series of political agitations, for the franchise, for amend- 


| ment of the Master and Servant Law, for a new Mines Regulation 


Act, for National Education, and finally for the full legalization of 


Trade Unions themselves.® 


| For these purposes, they used the trade councils, which they 


made‘‘the political organs of the Trade Union world.’’* 


*C. Richards, A History of Trades Councils from 1860 to 1875 (in- 
troduction by G. D. H. Cole), London, 1920, p. 11. 

efibid., p. 15. 

*Webb, History of Trade Unionism, p. 241. 

*Ibid., p. 242. 














7 
204 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND | 


The London manhood suffragists had, in 1859-60, 
endeavored to enlist the trades in their agitation. One 
chairman declared that if they would act “they would no 
longer have need for any strikes ... for they would be 
enabled to have justice done to them by their employers.”* 
Passmore Edwards and Benjamin Lucraft repeatedly 
attempted to organize conferences of delegates of trade and 
other working-class organizations to further political 
reform.” But the trades were unresponsive. The mem- 
bership was fearful of the disrupting influence of politics 
and was absorbed in the daily struggle for a living and in 
frequent contests over wages. The one exception seems to 
have been the shoemakers who, says Howell, often joined in 
political movements by vote of the members.* There was 
in 1859 a “Reform Society of City Boot and Shoe Makers” 
with two branches;* in 1861 the First Trade Union 
Directory listed a “Boot Makers’ City Reform Association” 
with four lodges, and a “Boot and Shoe-Makers (strong) 
Reform Association” with three lodges.® It was the task 
of the leaders of trade-unions to win them away from their 
non-political attitude. Of these leaders, Howell says, many 
had been associated with Chartists and with international 
democratic movements and were, therefore, prepared to form 
new combinations to advance the old cause of political 
freedom.® 

Certain incidents testify to the interest of trade-union 
leaders in the subject of a reform of the franchise at the 
opening of the decade. The Amalgamated Engineers officially 
protested against permitting Lord Robert Montague, M.P., 

* Reynolds's Newspaper, January 22, 1860. 

? Tbid. 

® Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, etc., p. 140. 

* Builders’ Salesman and Mechanics’ Advertiser, September 17, 1859. 

5 United Kingdom. First Annual Trades’ Union Directory, Lon- 


don, 1861, p. 42. (In the Goldsmiths’ Library.) 
° Labour Legislation, etc., p. 140. 














TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 205 


to preside at a meeting of the building trades called for the 
purpose of reopening the nine-hour movement. Their protest 
was based upon the fact that Montague had opposed Rus- 
sell’s reform bill of 1860. They even sent an officer to the 
meeting in question to demand that Montague apologize in 


the House of Commons for words used in that debate. A 


lively controversy over the incident was carried on in the 
press and elsewhere for some time.‘ Another incident 
points to a similar interest in reform. In March, 1861, the 


_ Journal of Typographic Arts repudiated a scheme proposed 


by Mackinnon, Liberal member for Rye, to establish coun- 


cils of conciliation, partially on the ground that Mackinnon’s 


speeches on the reform bill proved his utter inability to 
understand the character or the requirements of the classes 


_ for whom he proposed to legislate. 


The building trades continued through 1861 to be the 
center of trade-union interest. A struggle with employers 
as desperate as that of the preceding year took place. In 
the course of it, the new London Trades Council won its 
first parliamentary victory by forcing the government to re- 
call soldiers it had lent to replace men on strike at the Chelsea 
barracks.2, The profound influence these great contests 
were having upon the trades involved is evident from an 
examination of the reports and trade journal of the Oper- 
ative Bricklayers. A report of their executive committee 
upon the dispute over the hour system of payment, signed 
by E. Coulson, G. Howell, C. Shearman, and H. A. Noble, 
reveals as Chartist a tone as any document of ten years 
before. It declared, ‘Labour is the primary source of all 


* Reynolds's Newspaper, July 22 and August 5, 1860. 


*An account of the whole builders’ movement to date is found in 
the Report of the London Operative Bricklayers’ Executive Committee, 
November, 1861, on the Dispute relating to the Hour System of Pay- 
ment. (Appended to the Society’s Trade Circular and General Reporter, 
for July 1, 1862.) 


206 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


wealth,” yet the “idlers” enjoyed the most of it. They 
made the laws and had thus been able to keep down the 
real producers. On the question of hours the committee 
quoted Owen and Comte.’ At the same time its Trade 
Circular was advocating the union of all trades in a Labour 
Parliament to “legislate for labour” and to exercise influence 
“upon all social and political questions affecting their com- 
mon interests.”* It published a letter from Charles Neate, 
Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, in which he 
used the case of the Chelsea barracks to point the lesson of 
the need of political power, saying it ought to show them 
their mistake ‘in appearing, as you have done, indifferent to 
the extension of the suffrage.’’ 

In December, 1861, the Circular carried a long letter 
arguing for the political use of trade-unions. Strikes for an 
increase of wages or shorter hours, it stated, only touched 
the surface. ‘The machinery of trade-unions . . . might 
be turned to raise millions of men in social position and 
thereby lay for centuries of years the foundation of national 
freedom and power.” The vote was not to be sought for 
political reasons, but “purely as a measure for the advance- 
ment of the respectable working classes in their social posi- 
tion, and as a guarantee for their industrial rights and privi- 
leges.” The editor of the Circular approved the policy here 
outlined and suggested the formation of a great political 
trade-union committee of five hundred members. He admit- 
ted, however, the existence of much difference of opinion 
among trades upon the whole question.* 

Not alone were the building trades and the London 
Trades Council projecting political action. In November, 


*See above, p. 205, note 2. 


* Operative Bricklayers’ Society's Trade Circular and General Re- 
porter, October 1, 1861. It began publication in September, 1861. 


*JTbid., September 1, 1861. 
* Circular, December 1, 1861. 

















TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 207 


1861, the Glasgow Trades Council, representing over thirty 
trades of the west of Scotland, issued an address favoring 
such a policy. It continued to urge this until action was 
taken on it in the matter of the Master and Servant Law in 
1864. The address! is important enough to quote from at 
length. Declaring the belief of the council in manhood 
suffrage as the ultimate goal of reform, it yet advised the 
expediency of accepting whatever could be obtained and of 
using that as a vantage ground from which to work for 
greater victories. It continued: 


We would respectfully, yet confidently, declare that the various 
trade societies of the country are the best existing machinery for 
carrying out a successful movement of this kind. We are aware 
that many are opposed to trades’ meetings being mixed with poli- 
tics; we cannot coincide with such views so long as trades societies 
are amenable to the law. There are several matters in law that 
affect them, such as those relating to combinations of working men, 
and the inequality of the law of master and servant; also how many 
times have they been baffled in the attempt to establish councils of 
conciliation and arbitration? By what means are these measures 
to be rectified or obtained but by the possession of political power ?— 
the want of which affects the whole labouring class. If these 
things be true, how can it be that working men, in their associated 
capacity, ought not to entertain politics? . . . We conclude 
by submitting our plan of action, which is that all trades’ councils, 
trades societies and such like associated bodies at once memorialise 
the government to fulfill their pledge in the ensuing session of 
Parliament; after which let a monster national petition be got up 
for presentation to parliament on the day of its opening, in favour 
of a comprehensive measure of reform. 


_ This proposal, declared Bradlaugh’s National Reformer, 
secured wide discussion, but the general attitude toward it 
was hostile.2 One notable exception was the favor shown 
to the project by Bright. He wrote the Glasgow Trades 
Council that he approved such a movement on the part of 


"Contained in Reynolds's Newspaper, November 10, 1861. 

me. E. Brand, in the American Historical Review, January, 1925, in 
an article on “The Conversion of the British Trade-Unions to Political 
Action,” shows that the proposition was discussed in the London Trades 
Council, but rejected because the trades disapproved (p. 252). 







208 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


the unenfranchised.t In fact, Bright in a speech at 
Birmingham over a year before had advised trade-unions 
to agitate for reform.” 

The industrial struggle between employers and employed 
continued unabated. In parliament a prominent Conserva- 
tive was led to declare that the great social question of the 
day was the growing alienation between middle and work- 
ing classes as shown by strikes and trade-unions.? A new 
and sinister aspect was being given to the conflict by what, 
have been labeled the Sheffield outrages. As early ‘as | 
in 1861 came the first reports of violent measures adopted) 
by Sheffield trades to terrorize workers into joining the 
unions and submitting to their dictation. Those guilty of 
the outrages were, says one authority, with a single excep-| 
tion, small societies with occupations purely local and very 
destructive of life. The men knew they could not live long 
and so acted recklessly in attempts to secure high wages.‘ 
Early in 1862 the large unions were denouncing the pro- 
ceedings at Sheffield.’ - 

The reaction of the outrages upon the political situation 
was immediate. Holyoake pointed to the use at once made 
of them as an argument against enfranchisement ;* so did 
Bradlaugh.’ Charles Kingsley, whose words had just weight 
with workingmen, declared that if unions did not drag to 
punishment their offending members they would prove 
themselves “incapable morally as well as politico-economi- 











* National Reformer, November 23, 1861. 

? Reynolds's Newspaper, January 8, 1860; Quarterly Review, April, 
1866, p. 545. 

> Newdegate, in a debate on the Country Franchise bill. Hansard, 
GLCI7603: 

*Ludlow and Jones, Progress of the Working Classes, 1832-1867, 
pp. X-xXv. 

®> See Bookbinders’ Circular, January 21, 1862; Reynolds’s Newspaper, 
January 26, 1862; the National Reformer, February 8, 1862. 

® National Reformer, February 8, 1862. 

*Tbid., January 25. 


eS a 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 209 


cally” and would have to be put down, leaving capitalism to 
reign unrestrained. “I, and others, have been seeing with 
dread the growing inclination of the governing classes to 
put down the Trades’ Unions by strong measures.’ 
‘Unfortunately for the labor movement, these outrages con- 
tinued throughout the decade, spreading eventually to 
Manchester and other cities. Their effect in hardening 
resistance to reform was great, but eventually they served 
to enhance by contrast the peaceful and disciplined methods 
of trade-unions as a whole, by forcing an exhaustive investi- 
gation of the whole question. 

Meanwhile, leading trade-unionists were increasingly be- 
coming politically-minded. By 1862 the London Trades 
‘Council had been joined by the large national societies and 
had come under the control of their officials. George 
Odger, the foremost working-class politician of two decades, 
had become its secretary, and the council was entering into 


\ 


‘correspondence with similar bodies elsewhere. Thus began 
la nation-wide codperation among leaders, which, with other 
influences, was to lead before long to the formation of the 
‘Trade Union Congress.2 The council continued its policy 
of parliamentary agitation in behalf of measures it favored, 
‘and in 1862 entered into communication with the working- 
‘men of Naples—a step which was one of a direct succession 
of events that resulted in the International Working Men’s 
Association. 

| The large societies had by this time a regular organ in 
‘the press in George Potter’s Bee Hive, which continued to 


'serve this purpose for nearly twenty years.* In April, 











* Tbid., January 25. 

| * Members of Parliament as early as 1860 were much interested in 
the growing consolidation of the trade-union movement, as evinced 
in the builders’ strike. The Select Committee on Masters and Operatives 

| questioned George Potter closely on the subject. (See Report of this 

_ Committee, 1860, p. 67.) 


_ *C. Richards, History of Trade Councils, p. 15. 


p 
| 


; 





210 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 
1862, in an article on ‘Purposes of Reform,” it declared 


We do not seek an extension of the suffrage, etc., for abstrae 
reasons, nor for party purposes, but as a social necessity to comba 
the deteriorating influences of society, the diminishing earnings 0 
the great body of the people, and their gradually increasing outla’ 
on the necessaries of existence.1 


Then, touching upon a matter in which workingmet 
were intensely interested—emigration and the land as a solu 
tion for unemployment—it declared: “Parliament wil 
not place the people on the colonial lands, so long as it i 
composed exclusively of members whose interest it is to keey 
wages low.” Such a procedure on the part of the govern 
ment would be reckoned as revolutionary now, but “that i 
the description of revolution that we expect from Universa 
Suffrage, equal representation, and a Parliament reflecting 
the people.” : 

The importance of the leaders who assumed control 0} 
the labor movement in the sixties cannot be over-emphasized 
Foremost were those included in the so-called Junta— 
George Howell and E. Coulson of the Bricklayers’ Society 
William Allan of the Engineers, George Odger of the Shoe 
makers, and Robert Applegarth, who became secretary 0} 
the new Amalgamated Society of Carpenters and Joiner 
in 1862. In addition, there were others who, while play- 
ing a less effective part industrially, were as important a 
the Junta in politics up to 1867. Among these may be 
mentioned W. R. Cremer and T. G. Facey, carpenters, ane 
William Stainsby, of the tailors. 

Outside of these groups and at times at war with then 
was George Potter, the organizer of the builders’ move 
ment and editor of the Bee Hive. Alternately denouncec 
and accepted by the officers of national societies who com: 


* Quoted in Barker’s Review, April 26, 1862. 


























TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 211 


: prised the London Trades Council and the Junta, Potter 
“moved as an erratic force in the working-class world. He 
wielded, nevertheless, a great amount of influence both in 
“the political and the industrial field. It is perhaps safe to 
state that up to 1867 he loomed larger in the minds of the 
middle and upper classes as a leader and exponent of labor 
‘ithan did any other man. In the provinces his influence 
over trade societies was extensive. The feud that developed 
‘between him and the Junta did not succeed in injuring his 
position until after the passage of the franchise act; and 
even after that his position in working-class politics was 
important. The nature of the feud itself is significant. It 
developed out of the opposition between Potter’s aggressive 
trade policy and the more cautious policy of the Junta.” 
In a certain sense Potter embodied the spirit of the “new 
[itionism” of the last of the century, which was to rise up 
against the policy of the Junta, which had by that time be- 
‘come traditional, and call it a betrayal. Fortunate was it for 
trade-unionism, however, that the more bourgeois-minded 
Junta made good their leadership in the critical decade of the 
sixties. 

All of these leaders, except perhaps William Allan, be- 
lieved in political action by trade-unions. Applegarth, for 
“instance, declared at the moment of assuming office in his 
society that he was going to try to induce it to go into poli- 
tics. This purpose common to the leaders crystallized in 
‘the autumn of 1862 in the formation of an organization of 
| trade-unionists, called the “Manhood Suffrage and Vote by 

















) *See the MS minutes of the conference of Amalgamated Trades 
| (The Junta), 1867-1871, in the British Library of Political Science, for 
| evidence of these relations. 
*See account in C. Richards, History of Trade Councils, pp. 20-22, 
and Webb, op. cit., pp. 254-5. Personal animosity and jealousy had 
much to do with the feud, no doubt. 

*A. W. Humphrey, Robert Applegarth, London, 1913, 26. This 
_ author says Allan deprecated such action, and certainly his political 
activity is very slightly evident before 1867. 













212 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND | 


Ballot Association,” for the purpose of agitating the trades 
It issued an address to them signed by Applegarth, Howell 
Odger, Cremer, Facey, and others,’ which asserted that “ | 
the evils under which we suffer have a common origin 
namely, an excess of political power in the hands of thost 
holding a higher social position.” Now, they believed, th 
organized workers should undertake to advance the interes 
of the “toiling masses” by political action. Their intention 
was not to convert trade societies into political organi 
zations and thus divert them from their social objects 
“but we must not forget that we are citizens and as su 
should have citizens’ rights. Recollect, also, that by obj 
taining those rights we shall be able more effectually t 
secure our legitimate demands as unionists.’ In these sen 
tences they phrased the two reasons for the political agi 
tation by workmen for the next five years. The associa 
tion intended to try to draw together the many member; 
of unions who were already active in various politica 
societies and to invite the codperation of all trade-unionist: 
of the United Kingdom, either as corporate bodies or ai 
individuals. It deprecated all violent measures. “Let out 
advocacy be firm, intelligent, and persistent; not a sowing 
of the seeds of discord, but a promotion of the growth of 
union; not an exciting of class against class, but an endeavot 
to extend the welfare of all.” The preamble to the rule 
of the association based its demand for manhood suffrage 
upon the double ground of natural right and the payment 
of taxes. 

George Howell, writing the history of working-class 
politics up to 1867, stressed this association as an importani 
link in the development of public opinion that finally forcec 














*Humphrey, op. cit., p. 57, says Applegarth wrote the address 
Howell says in a MS letter of September 24, 1867, in the Reforn 
League Letter Book, that he wrote it. For the Address see Reynolds’ 
Newspaper, November 23, 1862, and Humphrey, Applegarth, pp. 57-9 


| TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 213 


] 

the measure of that year. He states that the association 
Be terse its work quietly up to the time of the formation of 
the all-embracing Reform League in 1865, whose program 
as identical with that of this association and in whose 
formation and activity the members of this association had 
a prominent part." 

| The interest in Continental politics, which English 
workingmen had shown since Chartist days, persisted 
undiminished throughout the decade of the sixties. It led 
to important results in their own political history. Inter- 
mittent intercourse with foreign workmen, soon to lead to 
the formation of the First International, went on during 
1861 and 1862. But it was in 1863-4 that events in foreign 
lands came into close touch with English domestic politics, 
largely through the interest therein displayed by English 
workingmen. In this year three conflicts served to reveal 
the deep international sympathies of the English working 
classes. So engrossing were these questions that they alone 
would account for the barrenness of this year in the organi- 
zation of the democratic movement in England. But if 
America, Italy, and Poland absorbed for a time the thought 
of the English people, those three conflicts, in which the 
‘central issue was human liberty, hastened England only the 
‘more swiftly toward her own democratic goal. Let us 
‘consider somewhat carefully how this came about. 

' The American Civil War appeared to all classes of 
‘Englishmen as a conflict between aristocracy and democ- 


racy.” As this issue became clear to them, the social groups 


in England became partisans of one or the other of the con- 
eeaats in America, according to their attitude toward the 











*Reform League Letters (MS). Letter written September 24, 1867, 
*E. D. Adams, Great Britain and the American Civil War, I. 26, 
states that America had had this significance for England since the 
early nineteenth century. See also II, ch, xviii, for a careful discussion 
| of this aspect of the Civil War. 





1 
| 
| 
; 
| 


214 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 









same question in their own country. Workingmen almost 
unanimously became ardent advocates of the cause of t 
North as the cause of freedom ;' opposed to them stood th 
conservative elements in society, both Whig and Tory, 
chiefly, says Trevelyan, because they knew if democracy 
triumphed in America it could not long be delayed in Eng: 
land.2 The aristocratic influence controlled press and parlia- 
ment, and, had it not been for Bright’s party and the work 
ingmen, their views might have determined the action of the 
government. Again the Radicals appealed to the masses, 
in 1832, 1846, and 1867, and helped form the national policy, 
“The working men throughout the country, instructed by 
Bright, saw in the Southern Confederacy the men who 
would degrade labour to a chattel of the capitalist, and in 
the great Northern Republic the central force of democracy 
whose fall would involve the baffling of their own hopes of 
enfranchisement.’’? John Morley said that partisanship on 
the American issue veiled a sort of English civil war, and 
the triumph of the North “was the force that made English 
liberalism powerful enough to enfranchise the workmen, 
depose official Christianity in Ireland, and deal a first blow 
at the landlords.”’* 

In 1862 the Radicals set to work to counteract the allegel 
pro-Southern sympathy of England. They formed an 
Emancipation Society for this purpose, among whose mem= 
bers were P. A. Taylor, John Stuart Mill, James Stansfeld, 
Professor Cairnes, E. A. Leatham, M.P., Abel Heywood of 
Manchester, Thomas Hughes, G. Lushington, George Wil- 








*One writer states that only in London, Liverpool, and Glasgow 
were workingmen divided—in London because never united, in Liver- 
pool because of close touch with the South, in Glasgow because of block- 
ade runners. (Hinton, op. cit., p. 63.) 

* Life of Bright, p. 303-4. 

* Trevelyan, Life of Bright, p. 306. 

* Article in the Fortnightly Review, October 1, 1870, on “England 
and the War” (Franco-Prussian). 


i 
Hl 


! TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 215 


beh, E. Miall, Prof. Beesly, Joseph Cowen, Edward Dicey, 
Edmond Beales, and Jacob Bright.1 All of these middle- 
class men from this time on were in increasingly close rela- 
tion with workingmen. Lincoln’s proclamation of emanci- 
pation at the close of 1862, which was soon interpreted in 
England as placing the issue squarely on slavery, gave such 
vigor to the pro-Northern forces that thereafter, wrote 
‘Cobden to Sumner, it was impossible for the government to 
intervene.” 

_ The working classes pronounced in no undecided tone 





‘upon the question.* The operatives of Lancashire, in their 
great distress caused by the stoppage of the cotton supply, 
‘remained staunchly loyal to the North, although government 
intervention for the South would have meant cotton and 
work. In the midst of their deepest distress, they met to 





‘congratulate Lincoln upon his proclamation.* In London 
the trades were aroused to action and thereby impelled 
further along the road of participation in politics. In 





‘March, 1863, a great meeting of trade-unionists was organ- 
ized by members of the London Trades Council. It was 
held in St. James’s Hall with John Bright in the 
‘chair. His address described the United States as the land 
where “Labour is honoured more than elsewhere in the 


} 


*From a pamphlet called The Emancipation Society (no date) in 
‘the British Museum. 

| ?Hobson, Cobden, the International Man, pp. 368-9. Trevelyan 
explains that this placed the Southern sympathizers in the position of 
(defending slavery (Bright, p. 305). 

*For an analysis of their attitude see an article by J. H. Park in 
the Political Science Quarterly, September, 1924, on “The English 
| Workingmen and the American Civil War.” Also, Adams, of. cit., II, 
) ch. xviii, and pp. 107-111 and 132-3. 

pe udlow and Jones, Progress of the Working Classes, 1832-1867, 
Pp. 99. 
* Adams, op. cit., II, p. 291 and 292, note 1, gives some evidence to 
the effect that Karl Marx brought about this meeting, and that he was 
| pein to impress the class nature of the American struggle on British 
workers. 




















216 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 













world.”? A few days after the meeting a deputation fron 
the Trades Council waited upon the American Ambassador 
to present an address to Lincoln adopted at the meeting. 
Bright, in introducing them, stated that this was, he believed 
the first occasion upon which trade-unions had expressed 
their opinion as a united body upon any political question, 
adding his wish that they would do it oftener in their owr 
behalf.” 

The influence of this event upon the politics of the gov- 
ernment was important. In the political history of Englis 
workingmen, it was of great significance. Howell wrot 
to Bright in 1867 that it did much to awaken the political 
interest of trade-unions and “aided us greatly in our endeavor 
to bring them into the political arena.”* Upon another 
occasion, Howell declared that it thoroughly committe 
trade-unions to politics. Furthermore, it brought Bright 
and the workingmen into close and harmonious relations for 
the first time. Never since he undertook in 1848 to create 
a national party by a union of the middle and the working 
classes had Bright been able to secure the unreserved confi- 


ee Et 


* Smith, Life of Bright, p. 229. Trevelyan, Bright, pp. 306-7. Note 
that Reynolds's Newspaper called the American government the only 
workingman’s government in the world (February 22, 1864). 


? Reynolds's, May 10, 1863. 
*MS Letters and Articles 1867-9. Letter written October 7. 


*“MS Reform League Letters. A letter of September 24, 1867—The 
move did not meet with unanimous approval from the London trades, 
however. T. J. Dunning, astute and influential secretary of the book- 
binders and editor of their Circular, stated his belief that it was a 
political move by wirepullers to serve the Federal cause; that no trade 
was consulted or authorized the meeting, and he believed it did not 
express their sentiments. They did not trust Lincoln, because his 
proclamation, which extended only to disloyal states, was not to benefit 
the Negro but to destroy the Confederacy. This, he declared, was the 
opinion of nine tenths of the workingmen he had heard speak on the 
matter. (Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, March 2, 1864). The Circular 
was making war upon the Trade Council steadily. This may have been 
a phase of Potter’s opposition to it, since Dunning was a loyal follower 
of Potter. This article says the action taken in connection with the 
American war was not taken by the Council as such, but the effect 
upon the public was the same and was meant to be so. 


| 


l 
| 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 217 


dence of the latter. His attitude on factory legislation, his 
opposition to their proposals for state-aided emigration, his 
refusal to declare for universal suffrage, and his opposition 
to intervention in European wars of liberation, had been 
barriers in his way. Those barriers were not yet sur- 
mounted, but the common sympathy felt in this work for the 
cause of freedom contributed toward diminishing their im- 
portance. What the effect of the victory of the North would 
‘mean for Bright’s position was expressed by Charles Francis 
Adams, who said that if the North won, Bright would be 
the most powerful man in England.! 








The democratic enthusiasm inspired by the American 
struggle was augmented at the same time from another 
source. In April, 1864, Garibaldi came to England. A 
Trades Garibaldian Committee had been in existence since 
1862 for the purpose of collecting funds for a testimonial 
and promoting demonstrations in Hyde Park against the 
French occupation of Rome.” It now went heart and 
soul into the organization of a gigantic workingmen’s wel- 
come to him, whom the masses had come to recognize as “‘the 
exemplar of the modern democratic revolutionist.’’* 

The members of the London Trades Council took the 
lead, together with George Potter and Robert Hartwell, his 
colleague on the Bee Hive. The most gigantic procession 
that London had even seen, and wholly of workingmen, 
-escorted Garibaldi from the station to Stafford House. 
The trades marched with trade banners flying. The Daily 
News estimated that fifty thousand men of various labor 








—— == = = 


Organizations took part. Their address to him spoke of 


* Trevelyan, Bright, p. 304. 

* Reynolds's Newspaper, October 5 and November 2, 1862. 

’ The phrase is Hobson’s, from his Cobden, the International Man, 
p. 323. See Times, April 6, 12, 14, 19. 


*Quoted in Newcastle Daily Chronicle, April 13, 1864. Times, 
April 12, declared only 5000 members of organized bodies marched, 
but there were masses of the unorganized. 








ee 2 








218 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 










“the unbounded fulness of our love for you and liberty.” 
The whole demonstration was “the people’s own.” Th 
editor of the Newcastle Daily Chronicle interpreted i 
significance aright : 

It is useless and foolish to attempt to conceal the fact that th 
sole reason of Garibaldi’s popularity is his connection with the 
cause of liberty. There is no need for alarm at this politic 


aspect of Garibaldi’s welcome. His cause is our cause and th 
cause of mankind.? 


But the ruling classes, Whig and Tory, saw cause fo 
alarm. The great provincial towns were planning demon 
strations that should outdo that of London. Soon Gari 
baldi had accepted invitations from thirty such towns, an 
the list was growing longer each day.* If he should 
permitted to tour the North a democratic force might 
created that would render impossible the maintenance of th 
political equilibrium. Hence the government, actin 
through Gladstone, made known to Garibaldi that he a 
desired to leave England. This he did at once.* ; 

The indignation of workingmen was great. The Work- 
ing Men’s Reception Committee announced a mass meeting 
of protest to be held on Primrose Hill. Acting with the 
were Professor Beesly, William Shaen, P. A. Taylor, an 
Edmond Beales, who were members of a Garibaldian com- 
mittee of middle-class Radicals. Beales was to preside, 
No sooner had the crowd gathered than the police ordered 
them to disperse and began to administer blows. The meet- 


| 
| 
| 












* Quoted in Newcastle Daily Chronicle, April 12, 1864. 
? April 18, 1864. 
> Morley, Gladstone, II. 112. The episode presents several points 
that were diversely explained at the time, especially with reference| 
to Gladstone’s part in it. Besides Morley, see McCabe, Life and Letters 
of George Jacob Holyoake, I. 329-31. Also Newcastle Daily Chronicle, 
April 19, 20, 21, 22; May 12, 1864; and Reynolds's, May 1. ° | 
* Newcastle Daily Chronicle, May 9, 1864. An editorial. The Times 
explains that workingmen believed the government was yielding to 
pressure from France (April 21). 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 219 


ng disbanded. The Working Men’s Committee met, 
adopted resolutions in their capacity as representatives of 
the trade and friendly societies and other organized bodies 
of workingmen, and sent a deputation to the Home Secre- 
tary to ask if it was the purpose of the government to prevent 
open-air meetings. The reply’ appeared to the committee 
full of menace to public liberty. Until 1862, upon the 
occasion of a riot instigated by Irish Catholics in the course 
of a Garibaldi meeting, the right to meet in the parks had 
not been interfered with. Then orders had been issued for- 
bidding meetings there ‘‘for the public discussion of popular 
and exciting topics.”* The committee, together with the 
middle-class Radicals who were meeting with them, in the 
course of these negotiations over the Garibaldi affair took 
up for discussion a suggestion to form a national reform 
association.? Never was the idea allowed to lapse. The 
next year it bore fruit in the formation of the Reform 
League under the leadership of these same men.* 

_ And so the Italian question, like the American, was 
developing the political consciousness of English working- 
men. To quote Trevelyan again, “the success of the Italian 
revolution, like the victory of the North in America, helped 
‘to create over here the atmosphere in which democracy 
triumphed.”® In the practical field of political agitation, 
workingmen were learning to prefer their demands as or- 
ganized bodies that had acquired such social significance as 
to give their voices influence. Furthermore, in these 
affairs, they were working in cooperation with middle-class 


| 
| 





| * Newcastle Daily Chronicle, April 29, 1864. 

| *Tbid., May 9, 1864. 

*See Brand in American Historical Review, January, 1925, in 
article on “The Conversion of the British Trade Unions to Political 


Action.” Also a MS letter by Howell to a foreign correspondent, 
‘September 24, 1867. 


*See below, pp. 250-1. 
| * Bright, p. 331. 


fi 
H 
{ 











220 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Radicals of various shades. A preparation was thus bei 
made for the reform agitation of 1866-7. 

A third question of foreign politics called for the su 
port of workingmen even at the same time as America an 
Italy; namely, the Polish revolution of 1863. The s 
pathy that had surged up in behalf of the Poles in th 
period of the Crimean War again possessed English wor 
ingmen. Out of their proceedings on behalf of Polan 
came the International Working Men’s Association. 

Public meetings began to be held early in 1863 in Lo 
don and the provinces to demand that the English gove 
ment intervene. Edmond Beales, the same who was acti 
in the Garibaldi affair, was the chief organizer in Londo 
On April 28 a great meeting of trade-unionists was held 
St. James’s Hall under the auspices of members of t 
London Trades Council.2 To the meeting came i 
French delegates, Friburg and Tolain.? A resolution was 
adopted to send a deputation to Palmerston to urge cooper- 
ation between England and France to restore Polish catia 
rights. The deputation included Odger, Applegarth, Coul 
son, Cremer, Facey, Potter, Connolly, and representatives of 
numerous other trades, as well as James Stansfeld and 
Professor Beesly. One member, a shoemaker, took advan 
tage of this occasion to inform Palmerston that they did not 
approve of his domestic policy, which denied them 
representation. | 

After the great trade meeting, Howell relates that a 
group of “leading spirits’ met at a tavern in Long Acré 
and consulted as to a “grand fraternity of peoples.” 
This group drew up an address to French workingm 











* Reynolds’s, March 21, 29, 1863. 
? Ibid., May 24, 1863; a full account. 


* Article by Beesly on the International, in Fortnightly Reviett 
November 1, 1870. \ 


* Article in Nineteenth Century, July, 1878. 








TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 221 


which was submitted a short time later to a meeting of trade- 
‘unionists and other workingmen at the Bell Inn, Old Bailey. 





| There is no question that this meeting was called by the 
|}London Trades Council.1 The address was adopted, 
‘signed, “on behalf of the workingmen of England,” by 
Facey, Odger, Cremer, and others, and forwarded to Paris.” 
a tone of it was a distinct foreshadowing of the Inter- 
|national. It praised the French visitors for the step they had 
taken “towards bringing together in common council those 
whose labours produce all that is essential to human happi- 
ness.” First, they must aid Poland. In the second place, they 
must arrange so that foreign labor could not be brought into 
England to defeat English trade-unionists in industrial dis- 


putes. For this purpose a regular system of communication 

















between workingmen of all nations was needed, “which we 
hope to see speedily effected.” 
| It was this address,* combined with the great meeting 
on the American war, that brought down the wrath of the 
_ Bookbinders’ Society upon the Trades Council. Dunning de- 
clared it had been made “if not the active means, most cer- 
tainly the nucleus, of the so-called political movements of 
the working classes,” for which it had not been instituted. 
The Bookbinders withdrew their delegate. Dunning, never- 
| theless, went on to rcuark in his discussion that, as for 
_ political action, he wished his society would petition as a 
body for an extension of the franchise.‘ 
Certain other antecedents of the International must be 
noted. Its first germs are to be found in the builders’ 
strike. This strike, says Howell in his history of the Inter- 











*It was so advertised in Reynolds's, November 8, 1863. 


| * Given in full in Reynolds's, December 6, 1863. It was written by 
Odger. 
* Dunning said of it: “As a Red Republican document .. . it is a fair 
_ sample of its class ... the silliest of all effusions.” 


* Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, March 2, 1864. 











222 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


national in the Nineteenth Century,’ aroused the interest o 
Continental workingmen because it was for the reduction o: 






hours and not merely for wages. Communications wer 
opened with them, and money came from Paris unions. At | 
about the same time Henri Tolain came to London =f 
says Howell, in the interviews that followed, the dreams o 
founding an international association began to assume defi- 
nite shape and form. In 1861 many English workingmen 
went to visit French industries and, as Reynolds's puts it, to 
strengthen friendly relations between the workingmen of the 
two countries. In 1862 French workingmen visited the 
International Exhibition in London.? A committee of Eng- 
lish workingmen entertained them with a tea at Freemasons” 
Tavern, where an address was read setting forth the desir- 
ability of some form of international union. A French dele- 
gate present suggested that a correspondence committee be 
formed in London for the exchange of ideas with the men 
of France.* A little earlier than this, the London Trades 
Council had, upon request, sent an address to the General 
Neapolitan Society of Working Men, of which Garibaldi 
was president, explaining the nature of English trade-unions. 
The address, translated and spread all over Europe, led to 
much correspondence and was a step towards the Interna- 
tional.® 

On September 28, 1864, the International Working 
Men’s Association was inaugurated at a meeting in St. 














* July, 1878. 

* June 2, 1861. 

7R. W. Postgate, A History of the Workers’ International, London, 
1920, p. 17. He says three hundred and forty French workmen were 
sent by the aid of Napoleon III. 

* Reynolds’s, August 10, 1862. Howell says this Exhibition had 
nothing to do with the formation of the International, but it probably 
did. 

° Howell in Nineteenth Century, July, 1878. For. the address, see 
Reynolds's, April 20, 1862. 


Some ty: 











TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 223 


_Martin’s Hall over which Professor Beesly presided.? 
Present were three French workmen and a few of other 


nationalities residing in London and English trade-unionists. 


_A provisional council was formed, with Odger for president 


and Marx as one of the members. Out of several programs 
submitted, that of Marx was unanimously adopted and em- 


_ bodied in an address and rules.2 These declared that to 
_ conquer political power had become the great duty of work- 
_ingmen, because “‘the lords of the land and the lords of 
_ capital will always use their political privileges for the defence 


and perpetuation of their economical privileges.” The 
emancipation of the working classes could be won only by 
themselves, and their success would mean not class privilege, 
but the abolition of all class rule. What they meant by 
emancipation, explains the preamble to the rules, was the 
abolition of the monopoly of the means of labor. The rules 
themselves called for annual congresses and a central council 
to sit in London. The first council included the following 
Englishmen, all of whom within a year were working mem- 
bers also of the Reform League: Leno, Hartwell, Lucraft, 
Shearman, Nieass, Odger, Howell, Osborne, Wheeler, 
Cremer, Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, 
Pidgeon, Weston, Dell, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Carter, Gray, 
Stainsby, Morgan, and Grossmith. Marx was on the coun- 
cil as corresponding secretary for Germany. Odger was 
president of the council, and Cremer was secretary. 

The Englishmen who accepted the address interpreted 
it, according to Howell, in such practical terms as higher 
wages, shorter hours, better conditions of employment, aboli- 
tion of child labor, extended education, and freedom of asso- 


*Accounts in Beesly’s and Howell’s articles above referred to, 
also in Postgate, The Workers’ International, pp. 19-20, and Beer, op cit., 
try 213, 

? Address and Provisional Rules of the Workingmen’s International 
Association, London, 1864 (a pamphlet.) 


224 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


ciation.' Howell stated later also that some of Marx’ 
theories were not yet known to his colleagues, and again,? 
that the original program was such as “a Gladstone or 
Bright might have accepted with a good conscience.” Bu 
whatever their understanding of the implication of the move- 
ment, English workingmen did within the next three years 
join or affiliate with the International in large numbers. Such 
other trade-union leaders as Applegarth and Henry Broad- 
hurst became active. Odger was president as late as 1870, 
when Applegarth was chairman of the general council.* 
The association permitted affiliation by organized bodies | 
like trade-unions upon the payment of a nominal sum, 
and numerous English unions affiliated.° Webb’s History 
of Trade Unionism® states that few joined in their corpor-— 
ate capacity, but the minutes make it clear that many affili- 
ated and paid annual dues in their corporate capacity. Naa 
were they only the London unions. John Kane brought in 
the National Association of Malleable Ironworkers ;* the 
Coventry ribbon-weavers joined ; the Lancashire, ete. Block-_ 
Printers Union did the same and paid dues for one thousand _ 
members; the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Car-— 
penters and Joiners paid two pounds for itself, leaving it 
to the branches to affiliate separately.* t 
In summary, by September, 1866, seventeen unions had — 
affiliated, and thirteen others had promised to; the number 











* Labour Legislation, Labour Movements, and Labour Leaders, p. 150. 

* Postgate, op. cit., p. 24. 

* Webb, op. cit., p. 235, note 1. Coulson, another of the Junta, was 
on the Council in 1867 (MS Minutes of General Council of I. W. M. A. 
—entry for March 21). (In Bishopsgate Library.) 

“Minutes of General Council, September 1866 to 1867. This rule 
was carried October 9, 1866. 

*Postgate, op. cit., Appendix I, tabulates those that took this 
step, as he found the data in the MS Minutes. Any study of these — 
minutes reveals the large number that so joined. 

° Page 235, note 1. 

* Minutes, July 16, 1867. 

* Minutes, August 6, 1867 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 225 


ncreased each year, so that by 1872 as many as forty-eight 
such affiliations had been officially recorded, which number 
included all the chief unions, even the Amalgamated Engi- 
neers.1 The minutes of the general council reveal much 
concern to obtain the adhesion of the London Trades Council. 
Deputations were sent to them several times; the final deci- 
sion of the council merely to “co-operate” was reported at 
the meeting of January 15, 1867. The fact is, that the 
association had proposed to the council not merely affili- 
ation, but amalgamation, and the council, after lengthy con- 
sideration, resolved to retain its corporate identity.2 The 
Birmingham Trades Council appointed a committee to con- 
sider the principles of the I. W. M.A. Their report approved 
its program,® but there seems to be no record of the 
council’s affiliation. 

| The favor in which the International stood with trade 
societies is indicated also by the action taken by the organi- 
zers of the immediate forerunner of the Trade Union Con- 
gress; viz., the “United Kingdom Alliance of Organized 
Trades.” The conference of trade delegates that formed this 


body at Sheffield in 1866 adopted a resolution that they, 
“fully appreciating the efforts made by the ‘International 
Association’ to unite in one common bond of brotherhood 
‘the working men of all countries, most earnestly recommend 
to the various societies here represented the advisability of 
becoming affiliated to that body.’”* The Trade Union 
Congress itself, in 1869, urged the same step.®° That 
Marx hoped to use the trade organizations as instruments 


in his economic transformation of society is evident from 











*Postgate, op. cit., Appendix I, p. 111. 


| *Full account of the discussions in the Trade Council reported 
/in the Morning Star, December 21, 1866, and January 15, 1867. 


* Birmingham Daily Post, December 6, 1867. 
* Printers’ Journal and Typographical Magazine, August 20, 1866. 
° Postgate, op. cit., p. 44. 











226 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


an address he drafted for the General Congress, 1866. 
declared the ultimate purpose of trade societies must 
the abolition of wages-slavery and of capitalist domination 
which mission they had not yet been fully conscious a 
They must learn to act as foci of the movement for emancei- 
pation and must regard themselves as the champions of the 
whole working class, including the unskilled and badly pai¢ 
workers. As a comment by English trade-unionism of 
such a conception of its function, the fact may be cited thai 
the admission of the United Excavators Society, unskillec 
workers, to the Association led to a coolness on the par 
of the London Trades Council.” 

It is beyond the scope of this study to describe the 
work of the Association as carried on at its annual con 
gresses.* English delegates attended all of them up te 
1871 and often took an active and moderating part. Bu 
as the association grew increasingly political, their sympathy 
with it waned. From 1868 the disruptive influence of 
Bakunin was at work; then came the Franco-Prussian War 
and the Commune, which wholly discredited the associatior 
in the eyes of the moderate English section. By 1871 i 
had ceased to hold the allegiance of any important grouf 
of English workers, though for a while longer a few extrem 
ists were faithful to it.* 

The International Association played a part in develop 
ing the whole of the English political situation just priot 
to the reform act of 1867. Its first declaration of policy 
stressed the importance of gaining political power as < 
means to ulterior social aims. The English section at on 
made this their chief object, entering into the franchise agi 


‘Beer, op. cit., II. 219. 

* Postgate, op. cit., p. 29. 

° A contemporary work that is valuable because of its documenta 
tion is O. Testut, L’/nternationale, Paris, 1871. 


* Howell in Nineteenth Century, July, 1878. Postgate, op. cit., p. 7] 











: 


} 
tation accordingly. Already trade-union leaders had parted 
company completely with a policy of no politics. To recapit- 
ulate: since 1860 there had been political action in connection 
with the nine-hours movement; the Glasgow Trades Coun- 
‘cil had proposed trade-union action for franchise reform; 
an organized effort to secure the repeal of the Master and 
Servant Law had been undertaken; the Miners’ Associa- 
tion had been formed at Leeds in 1863 with a concrete poli- 
tical program and committees to promote it; the London 
Trades Council had officially or unofficially participated in 
| political meetings with regard to the American Civil War, 
Garibaldi, and Polish liberation; a trade-unionists’ manhood 
suffrage association had been formed. And now the Inter- 
national, resting its support in England during its first years 
very largely upon trade organizations, gave both a theoreti- 
‘cal and a practical basis for politico-economic activity.* 

The reason for most of the incursions made by organized 
labor into politics from the sixties to 1875 was, of course, 
its sense of the legal restraints under which it operated. 
Simultaneously with their developing interest in the fran- 
_chise, in European and American liberalism, and in labor 
internationalism, trade-unionists were fighting their opening 
battles with parliament for the removal of restrictive laws 
and the enactment of enabling ones. This story has been 
adequately recounted elsewhere ;* it must be referred to 
here merely in order that its bearing upon politics as a 
whole may be gauged. 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 227 





*Another international movement in which individual working- 
men were interested, as well as the London Trades Council, was the 
International League of Peace and Liberty, formed at a peace congress 
held at Geneva in 1867. Edmond Beales, by that time the idol of work- 
ingmen, Cremer, whose life-work henceforth was to be for peace, 
and Odger helped to form it. The London Trades Council in December, 
1867, Appointed Odger to assist in forming branches. See Morning Star, 
September 7, December 14, 17, 1867. 


| *Webb, History of Trade Unionism, pp. 249-53; Howell, Labour 
) Legislation, etc., pp. 151 ff. 


l} 

















| 
{ 
1 


| 








228 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


The first of this series of parliamentary agitations w 
concerning an amendment to the Master and Servant La 
By making the breach of contract by a workman a crimi 
offense, while the same act committed by an employer co 
stituted merely a civil case, the law appeared grossly unjus 
Furthermore, the method of its enforcement by the magis: 
trates entailed intolerable oppression, hardly inferior, say t 
Webbs, to that suffered under the old anti-combinatior 
laws. 

This law, it will be remembered, had been urged by Wi 
liam Newton as early as in 1852 as an argument for political 
action.” The suggestion to renew efforts to amend it came 
from the Glasgow Trades Council in 1863.3 This body 
opened negotiations with the trade councils of London and 
other cities and in 1864 convened a conference of delegates 
to organize for action, which conference “marks an epoch 
in Trade Union history.’”* It was the first of its kind 
and the first of a series that culminated in the Trade Union 
Congress. The conference had a bill prepared, conducted a 
parliamentary agitation, as well as one throughout the coun- 
try, and succeeded in securing the adoption of an amend- 
ment in 1867 through the assistance especially of Lord 
Elcho. This was the “first positive success of the Trade 
Unions in the legislative field.” 

This agitation connected itself directly with that for 
suffrage reform. Even conservative, non-political T. J. 
Dunning of the Bookbinders wrote in 1863: 

‘Op. cit., p. 250, note 1. Prosecutions under the Act reached ag 


many as ten thousand a year (American Historical Review, January, 
1925, p. 257): 
* Above, pp. 47-8. 

* Report from the Select Committee on Master and Servant, H. 
C., 1866, contains an account of the inauguration of the movement, 
given by George Newton, secretary of the Executive Council of the 
movement, and Alexander Campbell, of Glasgow, one of the member 
(Second Report, pp. 1, 14, 15). 

“Webb, op. cit., p. 252. 











| 
TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 229 


This Act is indubitable evidence that the “workman” class is not 
represented in the House of Commons, while that of the “masters” 
ndubitably is. We are very far from recommending political action 
by trades’ unions, but there is such a thing as the opposite extreme. 
There could not be a better course in our opinion than for trades’ 
unions as such to petition for such reform as would ensure a better 
representation of their own class in the House of Commons.1 


_ In 1865 this program won increased favor. The new 
|National Association of Miners under Macdonald was 
reported as taking up the question of a reform agitation 
favorably at their conference. At a public meeting of the 
Boiler Smiths’ and Iron Ship Builders’ Union of the Tyne 
and Wear, the chairman advocated going in for general poli- 
a The newly formed Reform League, through its 
secretary, George Howell, issued a strong appeal to trade- 
‘unionists to throw themselves into the manhood-suffrage 
“movement they were launching. The ground of the appeal 
-was the Master and Servant Law and other grievances of 
_unionists.* 

The years 1864-5 were marked by much industrial un- 
rest.2 Numerous masters’ associations were formed to 
combat those of the workers. Thus, when the strong 
| builders’ unions in the Midlands in this year demanded an 

increase in wages, the masters’ organized an association with 
three hundred fifty firms in it and again adopted the dis- 
charge note as a means of subjecting the men completely. 











* Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, June 30, 1863. 

? Newcastle Daily Chronicle, June 3, 1865. 

*Ibid., June 6. 

* Reynolds's Newspaper, June 18, 1865. 

°Some figures on trade-union strength may here be given. In 1866 
the Amalgamated Engineers had 30,984 members, 229 branches, and a 
balance on hand of £115,359. The Carpenters and Joiners had 187 
branches and 8002 members. Unions with five thousand members or 
more numbered sixteen, not counting the Miners’ Association with thirty- 
six thousand and the Engine Drivers and Firemen with fifteen thousand 
(Ludlow and Jones, Progress of the Working Classes, pp. 200-205). 
See also Webb, op. cit., edit. of 1894, Appendix V. 








230 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 











The building trades in eight counties went out on strike an 
eventually won an unconditional victory.* 

In the iron district an ugly conflict developed which agi-| 
tated the whole labor world. In 1862 and 1863 two unions| 


strong masters’ associations already existed, and in 1864] 
they determined to break the new unions. They reduced] 
wages, insisted on “the document,” and, when the men 
struck, imported Belgian workers.* All the men eventually| 
submitted except a small section in North Staffordshire. In) 
order to subjugate them, the masters stopped the entire iro - 
trades of England for a fortnight.* Their organ, the Jron 
Trade Circular, frankly admitted the issue to be destruction 
of the new unions.* Rumors spread that the masters | 
intended to appeal to the government for aid, and the matte 
actually was brought up in parliament.® 

The struggle aroused nation-wide interest among work- 
ingmen. The London Trades Council took up the matter, 
but were opposed in their policy by Potter, who called an 
important conference of trade-unionists to consider the ques= 
tion and there adopted a more militant attitude. The case 
created a bitter feud between the two groups of London 
trade-unionists which persisted for several years.‘ The 





* Reynolds's, February 5, 1865. 

2 Comte de Paris, Trade Unions of England, London, 1869, pp. 94-5. 

* Reynolds’s, May 1, 1864. 

*See Comte de Paris, op. cit., pp. 95-100, for description. 

° Quoted in Newcastle Daily Chronicle, March 7, 1865. 

° Tbid., and Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, March 28, 1865. The men 
finally submitted after much suffering. 

7On the whole question see Webb, of. cit., pp. 254-5. Full dis- 
cussions in Reynolds's, March 19, September 3, 1865; Newcastle Daily 
Chronicle, March 16, 23; August 30; September 11, 16. On the timid 
policy of the Trade Council and the amalgamated unions, see Book- 
binders’ Trade Circular, January 31, 1866, for a severe attack, and July 
23, 1868. See also evidence by John Kane in Report of the Commission 
to Inquire into the Organization and Rules of Trade Unions and Other 
Associations, London, 1867, I. 14. 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS meyil 


ribed and were angrily charged in this heated controversy 
ith “gross neglect’ of the economic interests of the 
vorkers. 

It is a mistake to depreciate the influence of Potter, 
vhatever criticism may be directed against him in certain 
respects. It is evident that he represented a counter-policy 
o that of the Junta, and the importance of his following, or 
ulies, including Dunning, Kane of the Iron-workers, Mac- 
Jonald of the Miners, and Henry Broadhurst, signifies that 
the temper of large sections of trade-unionism was not the 
rautious, middle-class temper of Allan and Applegarth. 
Politically, Potter’s importance was conspicuous. 

_ The ironworkers’ strike and lockout attracted wide public 
attention. Denunciations of the masters were numerous.” 
Reynolds’s Newspaper, violent and extreme, but perhaps 
reaching the eye of more workingmen than any other paper, 
declared these masters likely to prove “pioneers of the mighti- 
est and most terrible revolution that ever took place in Eng- 
land” ; certainly they were “convincing the toiling millions 
that, under existing political arrangements, they have no 
protection against the most cruel wrongs.”* 

| In such fashion was the division of society into two 
hostile sections threatening. The strength of labor was 
challenging the strength of capital to put it down by the use 
of industrial and political power. Not only did employers 


| 
:. is significant. The council was displaying that “ex- 
reme caution in trade matters” which the Webbs have de- 











*His economic-political London Working Men’s Association was 
active in the reform agitation, 1866-7, and organized the Labour Repre- 
sentation League, to attempt direct labor representation. (See below, 
pp. 258, 294.) Potter was several times Liberal-Labor candidate for 
ae ment and was the second workingman elected to the London school 
oard. 

2 Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, March 16, 23, December 5, 1865, 
quotes many from other papers. For an extreme statement of the em- 
ployers’ views, see the Fortnightly, I, 1865, pp. 742 ff., “An Iron-Master’s 
View of Strikes,” by W. R. Hopper. 

* April 2, 1865. 











232 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 













sense this, but the general public also, as the Webbs ex! 
plain;' and the fear of trade-unionism was now increased 
by the resumption of trade outrages at Sheffield. Plainly th 
industrial question was approaching a crisis. For the pur 
pose of meeting national masters’ associations, the “Unite 
Kingdom Alliance of Organized Trades” was formed aj 
Sheffield in 1866. The conference that formed it consiste 
of one hundred fifty delegates claiming to represent tw 
hundred thousand men. It resolved to agitate for an amend 
ment to the law regarding masters and servants as well as tt 
act industrially.* 

The outstanding events that in 1867 brought to a focu 
all the energies of organized labor, both industrial and polit 
ical, were two: the simultaneous appointment by the govern 
ment of a commission to investigate the whole subject a 
trade-unions and the discovery by trade-unions, through ¢ 
judicial decision, that they had no legal status and could no 
claim protection for their funds from the Friendly Societie 
Act of 1855, as they had hitherto believed they could. F ron 
two sources, then, came an attack on trade-unions that, unles 
repelled, might prove fatal. The Trade Union Commission 
growing out of the tense industrial situation of those year 
and the Sheffield outrages, was ominous of a purpose t 
destroy trade combinations by law; the lack of legal protee 
tion placed the funds, and hence the life, of trade societie 
in jeopardy. The result was the marshalling of the force 
of organized labor in such strength that parliament and thi 
country dared not ignore it. . 

The story of the parliamentary effort does not need to bi 
retold here*—the taking over of both questions by the in 


7 Op. cit., pp. 256-7. 

2 Webb, op. cit., pp. 257-9. Also the Working Man, July 28, 186 
for resolutions passed. 

>See Webb, op. cit., pp. 263 ff. Also the MS minutes of the Con 
ference of Amalgamated Trades (in the British Library of Politica 
Science). 


TRADE-UNIONS AND POLITICS 259 





formal Junta, comprising the secretaries of the great amal- 
gamated trades; the aid given them by certain middle-class 
friends, chiefly the Positivists and Thomas Hughes, M.P.; 
the giving of testimony before the commission that cleared 
the name of trade-unionism from the worst charges against 
‘it and dispelled the danger of destructive legislation; and the 
agitation in parliament for enactments to give trade societies 
legal status and freedom, which after some years of arduous 
‘effort were won in 1871-6." 

_ Meanwhile, the hostility of the general public toward 
‘trade combinations had manifested itself from the first of 
the year. The Pall Mall Gazette declared of unions: 


; 

)Almost every one in the upper and middle ranks of life has got 
more or less into the way of speaking of them in terms of some- 
thing approaching horror. They are regarded as the antipodes 
of respectability. Trades unionism, socialism, atheism, red republi- 
canism, and we know not what other terrible ’ isms, are associated 
'together in the minds of large numbers of the classes which are 
“conservative and timid by nature. . . . These accusations prob- 
ably do more to estrange from each other the different classes of 
English society than almost any other which are current amongst 
jus. . . . It will be an object of the highest possible importance 
_ to exorcise, if possible, this spectre.2 


The Manchester Examiner and Times, at that very moment 
agitating for working-class enfranchisement, yet wrote of 














‘unions: 


| We admit their baneful character, we entirely deny the economical 
_maxims upon which they are based, we believe that their extinction 
_would be a blessing to the working classes and a real emancipation 
of industry; but those admissions do not conduct us a single step 
| toward recognizing the expediency of legislative interference? 
\ 


H *In these agitations also Potter and the Junta were often at war. It 
_has not been suggested by students of this question that the Junta repre- 
| sented the great, pacific unions, concerned more with their insurance 
funds than with industrial activity. Potter’s following comprised the 
| type of union that was not primarily an insurance society, but existed 
for trade purposes of wages and hours. The Junta in 1867 was working 
for a bill to secure the funds of societies, but Macdonald, at Potter’s 
| conference, declared it would not protect those unions that used their 
funds in strikes. (See Morning Star, March 6, 8, 9, 1867, for this con- 
_ ference.) 
2 Quoted in Manchester Examiner and Times, February 23, 1867. 


* Editorial, February 9, 1867. 





234 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 









The Birmingham Post, ardent advocate of extension of t 
franchise, spoke its disapproval of trade-union policies. 
A member of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce pu 
lished a denunciatory tract, which may be taken as typical; 
in it he declared that trade-unions existed for the purpose of| 
perpetuating industrial war.2 A few voices were raised 
on the other side. Professor Beesly defended unions in great! 
meetings in Exeter Hall;? John Morley explained the fun- 
damental issue to be the disastrous continuance of unlimited 
competition and praised, by contrast, the “social temper” of 
trade societies.* } 

The crisis in trade-unionism brought trade organizations | 
into the reform agitation, then itself at a critical stage, upon 
a large scale and with determination of purpose. They 
joined the Reform League, or marched in its huge proces- 
sions with trade banners unfurled. Significantly, Disraeli 
stated later that not until January of 1867 did he become 
convinced of the serious nature of the reform agitation. By 
July the suffrage act had been won from a parliament whose 
majority was hostile to the very thought of enfranchising 
members of trade-unions. Working-class political action in 
conjunction with that of John Bright and his Radicals had 
effected this result. We may now consider this agitation 
with a view to discovering its contribution to the development 
of political relationships that were to persist in the new era 
introduced by the democratic triumph of 1867. 


* August 26, 1867. 


2 Tabour and Capital, by a Member of the Manchester Chamber of 
Commerce, London, 1867 (in the Goldsmiths’ Library). 


> Webb, op. cit., p. 269, note 1. 


*In Pall Mall Gazette, quoted in the English Leader, May 11, 1867. 
The Times in an editorial of May 4, 1865, argued against reform, on the 
ground that workingmen would demand “reactionary measures on trade 
and legislation.” It declared that members in all parts of the House” 
were alive to these dangers, and that the ministers had done no more than 
act in accord with the change of feeling in parliament. 


CHAPTER Ix 


THE REFORM LEAGUE, THE NATIONAL REFORM 
UNION, AND THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 
: Parliament in 1860 by general consent had dropped the 
teform question. The conservative forces of both parties 
united behind Palmerston on this understanding. Old party 
| designations meant nothing. The Radicals no longer held 
the balance of power, nor could they regain it until the death 
of Palmerston should loose the bonds of the coalition and 
set free party strife again. 
In the country, the early sixties witnessed a correspond- 
‘ing inertia among all but certain small groups, and for the 
/same reason. The body of the electorate was content. The 
“aggressive spirit shown by organized labor and the intensity 
and prevalence of industrial contests drove a deep wedge be- 
| tween the working classes and the majority of the upper 
groups. Workingmen were absorbed to a great extent in 
| these industrial matters. They also realized the unfavorable 
| change in the reform situation with Palmerston’s return to 
power. Gladstone’s budget of 1860, abolishing or lowering 
tariffs on hundreds of articles, had done something to lessen 
_the force of the argument that had prevailed strongly with 
both the middle and working classes, that the burden of in- 
direct taxation was crushingly heavy and could not be 
removed without parliamentary reform. 

Nevertheless, reform did not at any time cease to be a 
live issue with workingmen. Certain small groups felt all 
the more keenly the responsibility to organize and work for 
it, as the impossibility of its enactment without agitation 
became apparent. Confidence in the imminence of reform 
_had deluded reformers since 1848. Now that that confidence 

















‘ 


236 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 










was dispelled, certain working-class leaders realized distinctl 
the obligation resting upon their class to take in hand it 
own enfranchisement. 

We have seen above how even trade-unionists in 1862 
formed a Trade Union Manhood Suffrage Association de- | 
signed to enlist the trades in a franchise agitation, as they | 
were entering into other political movements; and how in | 
1864 the inauguration of their campaign for amendment of 
the laws bearing on labor had furnished a concrete object to” 
be gained by the acquisition of political power ; and how this | 
new motive was increasingly insistent, down to 1867, when | 
it became imperative, in view of the prospect of hostile legis- | 
lation and the realization of the insecure status of labor 
organizations. The influence of foreign politics and of the | 
International has been noted also, as creating a politically 
charged atmosphere, from which even non-political trade- 














unions were unable to escape. The agitation of 1866-7 was’ 
very much the work of trade-unions, but even more the work 
of trade-unionists organized with their non-union fellows in 
political associations. 
In 1865 the death of Palmerston released the reform 
question from bondage, and these associations developed 
vitality and effectiveness. The Radicals of the middle class, 
again under the leadership of Bright, reawoke to their now 
historic position as allies of the workingmen for parlia- 
mentary reform, and they too organized for that object. In 
earlier years this alliance had been accompanied by serious 
misgivings and a consciousness of a difference of objectives 
that had rendered it difficult. Manhood suffrage and house- 
hold suffrage had been phrases covering more than appeared; 
they meant working-class political control, or middle-class” 
control with working-class support. Intelligent working- 
men in the fifties would have accepted household suffrage or 








So 








THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 237 


even less, as an installment, but they could not arouse an 
agitation upon anything less than manhood suffrage, which 


still sounded as the trumpet-call of a class. The revival of 


reform in 1865-7 was again to reveal the identical division 
among reformers. To the middle-class demand for a limited 
reform, the working class answered with a cry for manhood 
suffrage. The enthusiasm created by the latter made pos- 
sible the fulfillment of the former. 

After 1865 the parliamentary situation delivered the 
question into the hands of the Radicals, if they should be 
supported strongly in the country. The old parties came to 


life. Liberals began again to talk a liberalism in which many 


did not believe and to pit it against a conservatism in which 
they did. And Conservatives, alive to the fateful import for 
future party power of attitudes now assumed toward the 
dominant question of increasing the electorate, found them- 
selves involved in the difficult maneuver of harmonizing their 
principles with their prospects. Division in parliament along 


_ the line of principle gave way to division along the line of 


partisan advantage, made decent by party shibboleths. But 
if they were shibboleths to the parties in parliament, they 
had in reality been informed with the living spirit of the 
great social forces that were greater than parties—that were 
even then reshaping parties in the moment of their reap- 
pearance. The new authoritative voice that was to interpret 
these forces to an insincere Liberalism and make of it some- 
thing earnest was that of Gladstone. And the skill that was 
to adjust Conservative principles to these same forces was 
that of Disraeli. The time had come when Bright’s long 
labors were to fructify in the new Liberalism for another 
than he to lead; and the Tory-democracy of Sybil was to 
appear in the concrete form of Conservative workingmen’s 
associations maneuvered from the Carlton Club. 


238 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


In 1860 a manhood-suffrage association was started 
Leeds. Several similar associations had been formed els 
where in 1859-60, as has been already explained. Those i 
London were little streams that lost themselves in 1865 i 
the larger manhood-suffrage Reform League. This ass 
ciation at Leeds became the point of origin for the rival 
association to the League, the Reform Union, organized at 
Manchester by Bright’s party and working-class allies in 
1864. The Leeds Working Men’s Parliamentary Reform 
proposed at the outset a program of winning the codperation 
of the middle and upper classes for reform.’ It stood for 
manhood suffrage, but would take less as a step toward its: 
goal. The members of the Association were all workingmen, 
but there is little doubt that Bright was the inspiration of it. 
The phrasing of the plan of action has a tone that indicates 
it; furthermore, Bright was present at the inaugural meeting, 
and the burden of his address was the need of workingmen | 
to prefer their claims to the vote more insistently.2_ Edward 
Baines, a local member of parliament and parliamentary 
leader of the nonconformists, was present. Thus once again, 
as so often before, the three groups were united whose inter- 
ests required an alteration in the constitution. | 

In the autumn of the next year this Leeds Working 
Men’s Association called a reform conference to which came 
delegates from middle- and working-class reform bodies. 
George Wilson, the veteran free trader and delegate of the 
Lancashire Reformers’ Union, presided.* The only signifi- 
cance the conference possesses is that several working-class 
delegates stood out for their democratic measure, while the 
Lancashire Reformers’ Union (in reality the remnants of 
the Anti-Corn Law League) upheld a household suffrage, as 


| 

















* Leeds Mercury, December 1, 1860. 
? [bid., December 13. 
* The National Reformer, November 30; December 7, 1861. 


























THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 239 


‘it had done steadily since Hume devised his “Little Charter” 


in 1848. In the second place, this conference provided for 


the calling of another the next year and thus instituted a 
series, at the third of which the Reform Union was 
_ organized. 


In this year, 1861, several other manhood-suffrage Polit- 
ical Unions, upon the order of those in London, were 


_formed—one at Norwich, with C. J. Bunting, the well- 


known workingman writer of political pamphlets, for presi- 
dent ;? and one at Bradford.* A new one was launched in 
the metropolis (or it may have been a consolidation of the 
four earlier Unions), at whose inaugural meeting were gath- 


_ered together such diverse democrats as unreconciled Chart- 
ists like James Finlen, Washington Wilks, the journalist, 
-Lucraft, McHeath, who had organized the unemployed in 
| 1857, William Newton of the Engineers, and Lord Teyn- 
! ham, a peer of the realm.* These organizations, all of them 
_ taking form in March, were doubtless in answer to Russell’s 


announcement in February of the abandonment of reform 
by the government. The influence of the radical Lord Teyn- 
ham is also evident. He was present at the inauguration of 
all these organizations and advocated a network of manhood- 
suffragist “political unions” over the land. 

A second reform conference was held in London in 1862, 
of larger proportion than the one at Leeds.® The proceed- 
ings are of importance because of the clearer definition there 
achieved of the divergence of the two classes from each other 
in regard to the extent of reform to be advocated. Baines 
and the other middle-class delegates insisted upon the neces- 

1He wrote under the name of “A Norwich Operative.” He had ad- 
vocated a union of classes for reform since 1848. 

* Reynolds's, March 17, 1861. 

* Reynolds's, March 24, 1861. 

* National Reformer, March 18. 


5 Account in Reynolds's, May 25, 1862, and the National Reformer, 
May 24, 31. 








240 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


sity of adopting a moderate program as a means of securing 
that union of classes which was their prime object. Certair 
workingmen agreed to the wisdom of this course. Among 
them was George Newton of the Glasgow Trades Council, 
promoter of the agitation against the Master and Servant 
law. Others, on the contrary, were vehement in their asser- 


North could never again be drawn into a sham agitation. A 
Manchester delegate, who claimed a wide acquaintance with | 
workingmen, maintained that nine tenths of them were man- 
hood-suffragists, and unless the conference wrote that on its 
banner, it would better not unfurl one at all. The committee 
on resolutions was urged at least to declare for the principle 
of manhood suffrage. The end of the discussion was the 
complete defeat of the extremists. What was practically the 
“Little Charter” of 1848, the program of the Parliamentary. 
and Financial Reform Association in the early fifties and of 
John Bright’s agitation in 1858-9, was adopted. In other 
words, it was the regulation program of the Manchester 
Radicals. ; 

The year 1863 was full of political excitement for work- 
ingmen, as we have seen. This excitement, however, cen- 
tered mainly around events in foreign countries or the in- 
auguration of a parliamentary campaign against the Master 
and Servant law. In this year alone, in the interval between 
1861 and 1867, there was no reform conference. 

By the next year a sort of nervous consciousness of the 
approaching revival of the reform question began to manifest 
itself among the governing classes. The mere title of a 
pamphlet published at Liverpool suggests apprehension: 
The Danger of a Democratic Reaction and Suggestions for 
Placing the Franchise in a Sound and Defensible State 











THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 241 


While Still Possible. The author of the pamphlet feared a 
period of excitement, “an accident,” which would precipitate 
sweeping changes. The rehabilitation of the cause of de- 
‘mocracy by the turning of the tide of war in America and 
the response of the government to working-class pressure 
upon that issue were signs that were not misinterpreted. 
Nor was the democratic fervor evoked by the visit of Gari- 
baldi overlooked. The increasing political activity of trade- 
‘unions was coincident with keen industrial strife. So omi- 











ously were the anti-reform forces in the country consoli- 
| dating, in view of these facts, that Cobden, in a speech to his 
‘constituents, described the reform question as having as- 
sumed of late a dangerous aspect by becoming a question of 
the total exclusion of a class. Never had it presented itself 
so before.? 


__ The one single event that, more than any other, crystal- 
lized this apprehensive sentiment, and at the same time vital- 





ized the reform question, was Gladstone’s epoch-making 
speech on that subject in the House of Commons in May, 
| 1864, in the course of a discussion of Baines’ annual motion 
for a six-pound franchise. The argument of the speech was 
that there ought to be “not a wholesale, but a sensible and 
considerable” addition to the number of working-class voters, 
such as the bill of 1860 might have provided. But its theo- 
| retical justification of reform implied vastly more than this: 
: “T venture to say that every man who is not presumably 
incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or 
| of political danger, is morally entitled to come within the 

pale of the constitution.’’ Such fitness for the franchise had 
already been shown by a select portion of the working 
classes, Gladstone declared, and therefore the desired union 
of all classes should be promoted “by a reasonable extension, 








* Newcastle Daily Chronicle, November 25, 1864. 


242 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 









at fitting times and among selected portions of the people, 
of every benefit and every privilege that can be justly co 
ferred upon them.’ 

These utterances electrified the country. The Whiggish 
limitations imposed in this same speech and in the preface to 
a pamphlet edition of it were swept aside by public opinion 
radical and conservative alike; it was accepted as a pro- 
nouncement for democracy. The Newcastle Daily Chron- 
icle saw already the outlines of a “Great Party of the 
People,” with Gladstone as its chief. Throughout the rest 
of the year, the fact was assumed as established that Glad 
stone was now the leader of a revivified Liberalism. T 
democracy had adopted Gladstone, whether Gladstone h 
adopted democracy or not. “One of the fated words h 
been spoken that gather up ds forces of time an 
occasion and precipitate new eras.’ 

Gladstone’s progress toward the point where he could 
assume the leadership of a liberalized Liberal party is one 
of the most interesting studies in nineteenth-century Engl 
politics. His Conservatism and Church-of-Englandism were 
gradually transformed into political and religious liberalism. 
On the question of religious liberty he had drawn so close 
to the Dissenters as to be able to say in 1865 that he believed 
the interests of the Church of England would be best served 
by complete equality.© On fiscal and colonial policy he 
agreed with Manchester.‘ In regard to European liberal 
movements, he was in sympathy with the working-class posi- 

* Hansard, CLXXV. 312 ff., especially p. 324. 

>The Newcastle Daily Chronicle, May 13, 1864, summarized the 
press comment which shows this. Many assumed it to advocate man- 
hood suffrage. See also Times, May 12, 31. 

* Newcastle Daily Chronicle, May 13, 1864. 

* Ibid., September 16, 1864. Speech of Henry Fawcett. 

* Morley, Gladstone, II. 127. 

*In a speech in the campaign of 1865 (Newcastle Daily Chronicle, 


July 20, 1865). On this question see Morley, Gladstone, 1. 385. 
7 Morley, Gladstone, I. 361-2; also Greville, Memoirs, VIII. 297. 




















| 


1 


) THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 243 


‘tion. And, finally, his judgment of workingmen had been 
rendered much more favorable by their heroism in the cotton 
famine. All these influences had prepared Gladstone for 
Ithe step he took in 1864. 

| Nor can the influence of political expediency be over- 








looked as playing its part in his conversion. Many English 
politicians saw the direction in which the current was flow- 
ing. Gladstone threw himself into the current, which he 
knew to be irresistible, and was borne by it into power. By 
1862 he was beginning to pay visits to industrial centers.? 
In 1863 he was laying a cornerstone in the Potteries and 
receiving an address from the workingmen.? In 1864 his 
contact with trade-unionists was frequent, especially in re- 
gard to his Annuities Bill. Potter led a delegation to him to 
protest against the bill, while the London Trades Council 
sent one to disavow Potter and express approval of the meas- 
ure.* Upon this latter occasion, the deputation secured 
from Gladstone a statement that “‘the franchise ought to be 
extended to the working classes.’’ This was a month before 
his speech in parliament. In the autumn of this year he 
toured the manufacturing districts and spoke cautiously, yet 
“reassuringly, of reform, and received addresses asking for 





SS ee 


—————————— 


the franchise.* 

In 1864, the year of Gladstone’s speech, was organized 
the association which became the instrument of the Man- 
chester party in the agitation about to commence; namely, 
the National Reform Union. Like all similar bodies that had 
been formed since 1848, it sought the united action of both 
industrial classes, but, also like its predecessors, the work- 





1Holyoake, Bygones Worth Remembering, 1. 289-90, gives an account 
of a visit to Tyneside. 

* Reynolds's, November 1, 1863. 

*Humphrey, Life of Robert Applegarth, pp. 52-55. 

* Morley, Gladstone, II. 153. Reynolds's Newspaper, October 23, 1864 
(speech at Manchester) ; October 16 (Bolton) ; Newcastle Daily Chron- 
icle, November 9 (Lambeth). 


244 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 









ingmen who came into it had to come in upon middle-cl 
terms, not upon their own. 

The third of the series of conferences initiated by 
Leeds Working Men’s Association in 1861 was held at Man 
chester, 1864,! and here the Union was formed. In the 
discussions attending its formation, the gulf separating man 
hood-suffragist workingmen and the household-suffragi 
middle classes, which had appeared at every such conference| 
in the previous fifteen years, showed itself to be as deep and 
as wide as ever.? For this reason the Union was never able 
to create the united popular movement which it had in view. 
The partnership between Radicalism and labor it proposed 
appeared to labor to be Pei 

Accordingly, 
as it did one form of a Liberal-Labor alliance, was soon op- 
posed the Reform League, typifying that form of alliance 
which workingmen sought to achieve. Its program gave 
expression to the deep and abiding sentiment of the working 
masses for the full enfranchisement of the manhood of Eng- 
land in the name of right and justice. Behind both programs 
—of Union and of League—were to be seen the outlines of 
the ulterior objectives each had in view. It was the con- 
sciousness of this that made compromise impossible for the 
middle classes. Their program, therefore, prevailed, and 
workingmen in 1867 came into the Liberal-Labor alliance 
not in their full numbers nor upon their own terms. 

A study of the activities of these two associations prior 
to the triumph of the principles of the Union in 1867 pos- 
sesses interest in that it reveals this divergence. The ap- 
proaches made, the hesitancies, the antagonisms, the mutual 
dependence necessitating cooperation in spite of distrust— 





1 None was held in 1863, because of the cotton famine. 

* Account of conference is in Reynolds's, April 3 and 24. Brad- 
laugh deplored the bitterness displayed by extremists. (National Re- 
former, May 21, 1864. See also Times, April 21.) 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 245 
i were the psychological material of the Liberal-Labor 
Bifiance. Looked at thus, the reform agitation becomes some- 


‘thing more than a series of processions and harangues. The 


i 


‘forces that were to shape English history were at work in it. 
That the program of either League or Union was too 
wide for parliament or electors is certain. In 1865 the first 
general election since 1859 forced the question of reform 
linto the forefront of general discussion. Men knew that 
‘the Palmerstonian lethargy on the subject was approaching 
its end. The moderation of the utterances of Bright and 
Gladstone is significant. They expressed their desire for a 
practical and possible measure. Charles Buxton, Liberal 
'M.P. for Maidstone, told his constituents there was no dis- 
guising the fact that the existing electorate was becoming 
‘alarmed at the prospect of being swamped by workingmen, 
/and justly so.2 The Times boasted of the apostasy of Lord 
- Grosvenor, M.P. for Chester. In 1864 he had voted for 
) Baines’s bill, in 1865 against it. His explanation was that, 
' whereas he had viewed the measure as merely a testimony to 





- 


| the principle of reform, he now saw it as a specific propo- 
sition fraught with revolutionary peril. The Times de- 
clared such fears were the consequence of the constant itera- 
tion by Radical orators that any measure would be accepted 
“as an installment.” 

That the industrial question had much bearing upon 
political opinion is plain. Certain proposed schemes of 
reform favored a frank recognition of the principle of labor 
representation. Earl Grey proposed that workingmen should 
be treated as a distinct class and allowed representation as 
such, the registered trades being allowed to elect members to 


} 
» 


1 Reynolds’s Newspaper, January 22, 1865, for Bright’s speech at 
Birmingham; Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, June 2, 1865, for Gladstone’s 
at Chester. 

? Reynolds’s, January 8. 

* Quoted in Reynolds’s, May 28. 


246 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 















voice their interests. John Stuart Mill made a similar sug- 
gestion in a letter to T. B. Potter of Rochdale. “The most 
important questions in practical politics,” he declared, “are 
coming to be those in which the working classes as a body 
are arrayed on one side and the employers as a body on the 
other, as in all questions of wages, hours of labour, and so 
on.” Hence he argued that workingmen should command | 
half the votes in the House of Commons.? Cobden read 
this letter and wrote to Potter: “I do not like to recognize 
the necessity of dealing with the workingmen as a class in 
the extension of the franchise.’ 

The Newcastle Weekly Chronicle declared that strike | 
and lockouts were being used as an argument against re- 
form.* Sir George Grey, home secretary, in a ho 
speech,® said that, from public and private discussions on | 
the subject, he knew there was an honest apprehension in 
many minds against a wide extension of the franchise bel 
cause of the prevalence of strikes and the readiness with 
which workingmen listened to agitators in disputes with 
employers, thus being led to take a course which fostered” 
the alienation of classes. If workingmen would base their 
trade-unions upon justice and let them and strikes be volun-_ 
tary, he considered that one strong argument against giving 
them the vote would be removed. Presenting views that justi- 
fied such fears, Reynolds's Newspaper was then writing to its 
many working-class readers: “Let the working classes fully 
understand that their political degradation is at the bottom 
of all their social and industrial grievances” ;*° and again, 


ates ial 


*A pamphlet quoted from and replied to by Bright in a speech at 
Birmingham (Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, January 19, 1865) 
ews written March 16, 1865. Quoted in Reynolds’s, April 23, 
*Tbid. This was the last letter Cobden ever wrote. 

“May 16, 1865. 
° Newcastle Daily Chronicle, July 12, 1865. 
° April 16, 1865. 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 247 


at all schemes of reform being devised were a tacit con- 
fession of a conflict of interest between classes : 


oe great problem now attempted to be solved by aristocratic 
tatesmanship is how to confer on the unenfranchised millions the 
form without the reality of political power. The wealth producers 
of England . . . are quick enough to discern all this ‘ 
therefore they refuse to agitate or to work themselves into a 
dellowing enthusiasm in favour of reform schemes which are trans- 
parent shams.1 


__ In this election workingmen exerted a certain amount of 
solid influence.” Their most notable victory was in the 
choice of Thomas Hughes for Lambeth. His success was 
distinctly a triumph for labor. His candidacy had been sug- 
ested in the first place by Holyoake.* Leading trade- 
nionists formed themselves into an electoral committee ; on 
it were all the members of the Junta, together with other 
prominent workingmen, such as Cremer, Dunning, and T. J. 
‘Mottershead.* Hughes said afterward that two hundred 
workingmen gave their spare time without pay to his can- 
‘vass.° The minutes of the newly formed Reform League 
show it collecting funds for his election expenses. Hughes 
had been a friend of labor since the days of Christian Social- 
i was a promoter of cooperation, and a democrat. As 
M.P. for Lambeth, he became peculiarly the representative 
of labor, acting with the Junta to secure trade-union 
legislation. 
_ Another metropolitan election of special concern to work- 
‘ingmen was that of John Stuart Mill for Westminster. 








*January 1, 1865. 

oO their participation see English Leader, March 17 and April 7, 
— *Holyoake, Bygones Worth Remembering, II. 106 ff. 

*From a pamphlet, Mr. Hughes and the Election of Lambeth: The 
Call to Duty to Working Men, London, 1868—a handbill issued in the 
campaign of 1868 calling together the committee of 1865. 

° Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, July 11, 1865. 

* Minute Book of the General Council and Executive Council of the 
Reform League, for 1865-6. 


248 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 

















There is not much evidence available as to their direct par- 
ticipation in his election beyond the fact that one large work- 
ing-class meeting was addressed by Ogder in his behalf : 
But it is a safe assumption that they were much interested, 

By this time Mill was on close and friendly terms with 
them.? Early in 1865 he had published a cheap edition a 
certain of his works at the express wish of workingme 3 
There can be no doubt that by that year his connection with 
labor leaders was intimate. The three names that provoked 
most enthusiasm in working-class audiences during the re- 
form agitation were those of Bright, Gladstone, and Mill. 
After his election, he was regarded by workingmen as 


representative upon whom they could count. 
At Manchester the manhood-suffragists met with the 


cessors in the labor world were to receive so often at the 
hands of their Liberal allies. They tried to secure the cil 
of Abel Heywood as running mate for Bazley, but the Raa 
cals refused. The workingmen persisted ; the Radicals crie 

that they were splitting the party. The result was that a 
nondescript Liberal was elected by the aid of the Conserva- 
tive vote—evidence of the coalescing of the propertied 
classes regardless of party. Heywood again, as in 1859, 
received over four thousand votes, almost the total number 
of workingmen upon the register.* 


*Mill’s Autobiography, p. 163. That the new Reform League oat 
part in the electoral meetings appears from an account in the Time. 
(March 29) of a meeting for Mills’s opponent, which was practi 
captured by the Mill group led by Leno (ex-Chartist) and S - Moma 
both among the organizers of the League. 

? His economic principles had come to accord to a large extent witll 
theirs. For these principles see Beer, History of British Socialism, I. 
187-8, 231; Barker, op. cit., p. 205; ’also J. S. Mill, Socialism, ed. by 
W. D. P. ’Bliss, New York, 1891 (a rough draft by Mill written in 
1869). ‘ 
® Autobiography, p. 154. f 

* Account in the Lankishire Loominary un Wickly Lookin’ Glass, 
July 1, 8, 15, 22; August 12, 1865; Newcastle Weekly Chronicle, June 
30, 1865. 


———— 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 249 


! 
: 

At Newcastle the patient efforts of democrats of both 
classes were rewarded in the election of Joseph Cowen, Sr. 
Ww orkingmen played a conspicuous part in his election. John 
Kane, secretary of the National Association of Ironworkers, 
was active in his behalf.‘ At Sunderland, the greatest ship- 
building center of Great Britain, the Radicals and working- 
men, who had been struggling to emancipate the borough 
i. the control of the ship-owners, brought forward an 
employer who stood for “all points of the Charter” except 
annual parliaments.? In the most bitter contest in the his- 
tory of the borough, he was defeated by a Whig-Tory alli- 
ance. At Tynemouth an equally exciting election resulted 
more happily for the advanced party with the success of 
lc. O. Trevelyan. He was supported by a Non-Electors 
Association, and at one great non-electors’ meeting for him 
Miron the platform were joiners, painters, tailors, and other 
workingmen. A joiner occupied the chair.‘ 

The net result of the election was a considerable strength- 
ening of the advanced Liberals. The election was generally 
interpreted as meaning a reform bill, though only a moderate 
‘one. Disraeli was alarmed over the added strength of 
Bright’s party® and over the growing strength of Liberal- 
ism generally, and he began to suggest to Derby that Con- 
servative hopes might depend upon extending the basis of 
representation.° In the campaign those Conservatives who 
had pronounced for reform at all had advocated only a lat- 
eral extension.? Many Liberal candidates had been vague 








* Newcastle Daily Chronicle, February 15; July 6, 7, 12, 1865. 

? Tbid., July 4; August 28, 1865. 

*Tbid., July 13. He was elected a short time afterward at a bye- 
election. 


* Newcastle Daily Chronicle, November 11, 1865; July 11, 1865. 
® Speech to his constituents (Reynolds’s, July 30, 1865). 
°Monypenny and Buckle, of. cit., IV. 416. 


™Lord Stanley did this (Reynolds’s, July 16) and Beresford Hope 
at Stoke (ibid., July 2). 


250 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


on the subject and had led the people to consider them mor 
sincere reformers than they were.* t 

It was not the election of 1865 that brought the refo fT 
question sharply to a crisis, but the death of Palmerston i 
October of that year. Disraeli wrote to Derby that ther 
was now danger of changes occurring in both Church and 
State ‘which neither the necessities of the country require 


nor its feelings really sanction.”? Shaftesbury wrote: 







We must now be prepared for vast and irrevocable changes. 
We seem as though we were going to do everything that we mos 
disliked. No one wishes for Reform, and yet every one will giv 
ity) he Parliament is called moderate, and even “liberally Con 
servative”; but it will prove decidedly revolutionary. The periog 
is fast approaching, when the real effects of the Reform Bill [6 
1832] will begin to be felt.3 | 
P| 
It has already been noted that in 1864 the National Re 
form Union was formed. In 1865 its rival, the Refo 
League, was constituted upon a basis of registered, resi 
dential, manhood suffrage and the ballot. The activities ot 
this league present the most complete picture of general 
working-class politics between the date of its formation ane 
its dissolution in 1869 that can be found. It was distinctly 
a working-class organization, though it had the support of 
certain middle-class individuals. It possessed a temper and 
a purpose that differentiated it sharply from its Radical 
contemporary. Since it was organized as an agitating body 
it was usually favored by the Radicals, but at times a shart 
antagonism arose because of the abiding differences betweer 
a middle- and a working-class political movement. 
The League owed its origin to Garibaldi’s visit in 1864.' 
When the public meeting on Primrose Hill, called by the 
*H. Cox, The Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867, London, 1867, p. 2 
? Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., [V. 426. 
® Hodder, Shaftesbury, Tits Zor 
“The account in Howell’s MS letter to a foreign correspondent 


dated September 24, 1867, is the best there is of these events (in the 
League Letter- Book). 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 Zol 


| Working Men’s Garibaldi Committee to protest against the 
curtailment of his visit, was broken up by the police, the com- 
‘mittee, with certain middle-class sympathizers, among them 
_Edmond Beales, barrister, met later in the day, and it was 
here that George Howell proposed the formation of a polit- 
‘ical association.* Beales presided at a number of prelimi- 
|mary meetings to that end. The franchise and the right of 
public meetings were the two questions discussed. At one 
of those meetings a letter from Bright was read that gives 
the key to his relations with the manhood suffragists. He 
h 

| wrote: 





I think you are quite right to move for manhood suffrage, for that 
‘is what you must approve. . . . I think the people everywhere 
should ask for what they want, but, at the same time, I would recom- 
mend that they who ask for much should not regard as enemies and 
opponents those who ask for less. By a combined and friendly 
movement we shall get something, and that once gained is never 
: again lost, but becomes an additional power to obtain more.? 





| It is certain that the Radicals had been negotiating with 
| Beales and the workingmen. The above letter from Bright 
‘is evidence. At that same meeting letters were read from 
other members of parliament, who had been invited, but who 
did not attend. The Observer mentioned in this connection 
| Bright, Forster, Samuel Morley, and others.* It declared 
that if the workingmen showed they were in earnest the 
Radicals were willing to put down five thousand pounds with 
which to carry on the agitation. Those negotiations must 
not have been satisfactory, for never did the Radicals con- 
tribute a quarter of that sum in the whole course of the agi- 
tation. The League was constantly in want of funds. Those 


middle-class Radicals who were actively and openly con- 





. 
| 


*This was shortly after the formation of the National Reform 
Union at Manchester. See above, p. 219. 

* Times, June 23, 1864. 

? Quoted in Park, The Reform Bill of 1867, p. 89, as quoted in the 
Times of February 21, 1865. 


252 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 








nected with it were tried democrats, and not Manchesterites | 
—such men as P. A. Taylor, Beales, and Samuel Morleml 
Morley was a leading nonconformist politician and a demo- 
crat of the type of Joseph Sturge and Edward Miall. But | 
that Bright was in touch with the League fairly constantly is 
also certain. Since he was in reality guiding the whole agita- 
tion, he could not afford to act otherwise, and he and the 
Radicals found the zeal and enthusiasm aroused by the 
League a most potent whip with which to scourge Whigs 
and Tories into a reforming frame of mind. | 

In February, 1865, the League was formally constituted] 
by resolution at a public meeting in St. Martin’s Hall.t In 
March Beales was chosen as president of the League, Howell 
as secretary; a permanent executive committee was formed! 
and offices opened in Adelphi Terrace. It is interesting to 
note that the rules adopted provided for the formation of 
autonomous branches and also for the affiliation of bodies 
which could not become branches.2 This latter scheme, 
identical with that adopted a year later by the International, 
was no doubt designed for trade-untons. In May an Ad- 
dress to the workingmen of Great Britain and Ireland was 
issued, some phrases of which indicate the Chartist tone of 
the document: “The Working Classes in our Country, the 
producers of its wealth, are in a degraded and humiliating 
position . . . the men who have fought her battles, 
manned her ships, tilled the soil, built up her manufactures, 
trade and commerce . . . are denied the most essential 
privileges of citizens,’ without which “‘we are powerless for 








* Short account in the Times of February 24. Hartwell (ex-Chartist 
and Potter’s henchman) presided. Potter took a prominent part. Beales 
and Mason Jones represented the middle-class group. Jones soon fell 
into disfavor with the League. The minutes record many complaints, 
and he soon ceased to be active—evidence again of the failure of middle- 
class cooperation. 

2A printed copy of the Rules and Address is inserted in the MS 
Minute Book for April 15, 1865, to November 7, 1866. 














THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 253 


the present and hopeless for the future.”” Let workingmen, 
therefore, organize and agitate, but peacefully and legally. 
“Take courage from the triumph of our brethren in Amer- 
ica.” Finally, on May 13, 1865, the inaugural public meet- 
ing of the League took place, and it was formally launched 
into politics.? 

The minutes of the League for the first few months re- 


_veal among those active in it the trade-unionists, Odger, 
_ Applegarth, Coulson, Cremer, Stainsby, and Nieass; several 
who were active in the International, as George Eccarius, 
| the Marxian tailor ; several ex-Chartists, as Robert Hartwell 


and J. B. Leno; and several middle-class democrats, as J. A. 
Nicholay, J. Baxter Langley, and Charles Bradlaugh. In 
June Ernest Jones, now residing at Manchester, was made a 


_ vice-president. By this time also branches had been formed 
_ in Birmingham, Manchester, Huddersfield, and other pro- 


vincial towns, and soon lecturers were being sent out to speak 
on various political questions. The land is mentioned as one. 
Applegarth was among the lecturers. 

Thus before the death of Palmerston two national organ- 
izations were at work for reform. The problem had at once 
arisen as to the relation between these two bodies. Two 
months after the formation of the League, the Union called 
a national conference to meet on the eve of the election in the 
Free Trade Hall, Manchester, for the purpose of unifying 
the agitation.? Two hundred delegates represented many 
associations or geographical districts. Among the associa- 
tions represented, those that were evidently made up of 
workingmen were the Manhood Suffrage Association of 

1A pamphlet is in the British Library of Political Science entitled 
Speech of Edmond Beales, Esq. M.A., President of the Reform League, 
at a meeting in St. Martin’s Hall in support of the League, May 153, 


1865, with notes. 


* Report of Proceedings at the National Reform Conference, held in 
Free Trade Hall, Manchester, May 15 and 16, 1865, George Wilson, 
chairman (printed for the National Reform Union). 


254 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Bury, one of the same name at Manchester, as well as th | 
Manchester Working Men’s Parliamentary Reform Asso 
ciation, the International Working Men’s Association, and 
the Reform League. The rest probably were Radical organ= 
izations with some working-class members. From the mo- 
ment that the question of the extent of reform to be | 
demanded was raised by Jacob Bright, the debate waxed hot | 
between the proponents of the two principles represented. 
The Reform League delegates took up the challenge at once, 
saying that London workingmen could not accept less than 
manhood suffrage, because anything else would not enfran- 
chise them. Cremer, speaking for the International, said that 
its twelve thousand members had sent him to speak for man- | 
hood suffrage. The Manchester men retorted that London | 
blocked every movement for reform by such uncompromising 
tactics and accused the League of having organized expressly 
to thwart the Union. 

Not only was there disagreement as to principle, but also 
as to method of procedure. The moderate, middle-class 
group advised proceeding with such moderation as to win 
support in parliament, but the extremists thought of coercing 
parliament. In the words of E. O. Greening, delegate of the 
Manchester manhood-suffragists: ‘What was really wanted 
was the arousing of such a feeling throughout the country 
in favour of the full principle that they [parliament] would 
be obliged, from the very fear of that moral pressure, to 
give way.’! Ernest Jones pronounced all the resolutions 
proposed by the resolutions committee nonentities. A Hud- 
dersfield delegate of the Reform League stated that the men 
of that town would not agitate except for the widest fran- 
chise. Finally, Beales urged the conference to accept at least 
the principle of manhood suffrage, but P. A. Taylor per- 






* Report of Conference, p. 53. 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 255 


-/suaded him reluctantly to withdraw his motion. In the end 
"the League lost on every round, but George Howell wrote 
soon afterward that neither did the Union carry their pro- 
gram, but merely a few colorless resolutions. He asserted 
that when Beales was speaking to his last motion, the Union 
packed the hall to defeat it.1_ George Newton, organizer of 
the agitation against the law on Masters and Servants then 
in progress, was one of the working-class delegates who sym- 
pathized with the middle-class position. He declared it hope- 
less to expect parliament to accept manhood suffrage; “if 
they went to the House of Commons and asked for it they 
| might as well stay at home and whistle jigs.”? The League 
delegates hoped for either of two things: to frighten parlia- 
‘ment by Chartist methods into granting a Chartist reform, 
or, as Howell wrote to Lucraft later in the year, “if we work 
we may be landed somewhere nearer manhood suffrage.’ 
__ The Reform League adopted the policy at the outset of 
trying to enlist the trades. In June, 1865, it addressed to 
them the appeal which has already been quoted above,‘ 
pointing to their grievances as unionists that resulted from 
their powerlessness to voice their interests in the House of 
Commons. The minutes record discussions as to how to 
bring the trades in. Practically all the prominent trade 
unionists were active in the League from the start; even 
George Potter was, though he was then waging war upon 
the London Trades Council over the matter of the Stafford- 
shire ironworkers and, for that reason, soon carried his 
quarrel into the League, upon whose council most of the 
Trades Council sat. The minutes contain denunciations of 
‘his machinations.» Within a few months he set up his 














*Reform League Letters, November 17, 1865 (to W. L. Evans). 

? Reynolds’s, May 21. This issue gives an account of the Conference. 
* Reform League Letters, November 9, 1865. 

mee 229) 

°E.g., for August 11, 1865. 


256 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 
London Working Men’s Association, designed to be his 
organ in distinction from the Trades Council in matters in- 
dustrial and from the League in politics. | 

The first trade-union recorded as paying a contribution 
to the League and voting to form a branch among its mem- 
bers was the Finsbury Branch of the Amalgamated Cord- 
wainers.’ Soon Odger reported the ironworkers of Gran- 
tham warm in support.” Letters were sent to over a hun- 
dred officials of the various lodges of the Operative Brick- 
layers, and hundreds of others to the Cordwainers, Carpen- | 
ters and Joiners, Amalgamated Engineers, the Potters of 
Staffordshire, etc.* 

In December, 1865, the League initiated a policy de- 
signed to draw closer its relations with all organized bodies 
of workingmen, which became a permanent and effective 
part of its machinery. This was to hold periodical confer- 
ences with delegates from trade, friendly, temperance, and 
other working-class societies. The first conference was ap- 
parently a success. The public meeting upon the occasion 
filled St. Martin’s Hall and necessitated two overflow meet- 
ings. This interest was not created by the presence of any 
popular orator, for all the speakers were workingmen.* 
Upon the eve of the introduction of Gladstone’s bill in 1866, 
another conference was held, and the council’s minutes 
record that delegates were sent by the Operative Bricklayers, 
the Amalgamated Carpenters, the Shoemakers’ Amalga- 
mated Society, “etc., etc.”® Howell’s letters inviting the 


* Minutes, August 18, 1865. 
* Tbid., September 22. 


Casi: League Secretary’s Petty Cash Book. Entries for June, 
1865. 


* Reynolds's, December 17, 1865. 


° February 23, 1866. See an account also in the Morning Star for 
March 1 and 2, 1866. 


| 
| THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 257 


unions to participate on this occasion all used as an argument 
the need of trade-union legislation.? 

Relations between the League and the Union were verg- 
_ing on hostility by the end of the year.2 Howell wrote 
to Greening of Manchester that if a break came he desired 
it to be from the other side.* Not even Bright was ap- 
proved of. Beales called his recent acts “unworthy”; and 





another member of the council said the less they depended 
| on Bright the better, for he was fast verging on Conserva- 
tism and had begun to preach reaction.# When Bright 
stated that a measure similar to that of 1860 would give 
| satisfaction, the council was indignant. 

Nevertheless, by the opening of 1866 it is noticeable that 
-a few middle-class Radicals were beginning to contribute to 





, the funds of the League, though in small amounts.® The 
council was in correspondence with Gladstone, Fawcett, 
Hughes, T. B. Potter, F rederick Harrison, and other Liber- 
als in and out of parliament. 








| The League was meanwhile expanding and improving its 
organization. The council was regular in attendance, and 
the minutes reveal its admirable spirit and method, moder- 
| ate, earnest, and circumspect. This was due in large part 
to the wise and high-minded guidance of the President, 
Edmond Beales. His lofty character impressed its own 
: quality upon the organization over which he presided for 
four years. Repeatedly, the minutes, as well as Howell’s 
: 





*Reform League Letters, January and February. 

2 Minutes, November 10, 22; December 8, 1865; Reynolds's, Nov- 
ember 26. 

*Reform League Letters, November 6, 1865. 

* Minutes, September 22, 1865. 

®Secretary’s Petty Cash Book. Amounts varied from a few pounds 
up to fifty. Among the donors were P. A. Taylor, S. Morley, S. Pope 
(a permissive bill advocate), Wm. Hargreaves, of the Ballot Society, 
and Sir Wilfrid Lawson, M.P. 


258 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


letters, give evidence of the respect and affection in which he 
was held and of his wise and moderating leadership.* 


Another working-class organization that was to figure 
prominently in politics, 1866-7, was Potter’s London Work- 
ing Men’s Association. About this body there has been a 
good deal of misconception.? It was formed in March, 
1866.2 Its political program was registered, manhood suf- 
frage, the ballot, and more equal representation, but it, unlike 
the League, announced its readiness to accept less, Potter 
declaring that manhood suffrage was impossible in their life- 
time.* From the first, it made the insertion of a lodger 
clause in any reform bill its special cause. This was a matter 
of vital interest to London. The membership of the Asso- 
ciation included T. J. Dunning of the Bookbinders ; T. Con- 
nolly, president of the Operative Stonemasons; Joseph 
Leicester, secretary of the Glass-makers’ Society; Henry 
Broadhurst, and other less conspicuous trade-unionists. 


*He was an idealist fighting against all forms of oppression. He 
belonged to Polish Committees, a Circassian Committee, the Emancipa- 
tion Society, the Garibaldi Committee, the Jamaica Committee, etc. 
(From a MS article on Beales written by Howell in 1874.) 

7 West, History of the Chartist Movement, p. 277, note 1, says 
wrongly that it grew out of the Reform League. Beer, History of Brit- 
ish Socialism, II. 223, considers Hartwell and not Potter the leading 
figure, identifies it with Chartism, and says it did no more than adopt a 
program. All are incorrect. (Beer calls it “Union.”) Webb, of, cit., 
p. 255, calls it unimportant and of nondescript persons. It was im- 
portant politically, and even its trade-union following for a time was as 
large as that of the Junta. Its members were hardly nondescript. G. 
Gittler, Die Englische Arbeiterpartei, Jena, 1914, p. 42, confuses it 
with the League. 

>So Hartwell stated. See Morning Star, October 1, 1867. Humph- 
rey, History of Labour Representation, says it was formed February 16 
(p. 10). Potter, in his evidence before the Trade Union Commission 
in March, 1867, stated that the association had been in existence about 
fifteen months. Its prospectus declared its object to be “to procure the 
political enfranchisement and promote the social and general interests 
of the industrial classes.” Potter likened it to a trades council and 
stated that its industrial objects were its major concern. (First Report 
of the Commissioners Appointed to inquire ee the Organization and 
Rules of Trade Unions, etc., H. of C., 1867, p. 


* Morning Star, August 2, 15, 1866. 














} 
| 
| 
| THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 259 
7 en Kane, president of the Ironworkers, was in close touch 
_lwith it.t The purpose of the organization was two-fold: 


"0 act as a political organ of trade-unions and to perform 
" wade-union functions as well.2 It was able to draw the 
' rade-unions of London into its political agitation upon a 
arge scale and thus exerted much influence upon the pro- 
' gress of the reform question. It revealed its industrial in- 





fluence when it convened an important conference of trade 
delegates from all over the country upon the appointment of 


"the Royal Commission on Trade Unions early in 1867. In 
“this it was opposed unremittingly by the Junta, who suc- 
4 ceeded in largely nullifying the conference. 

| 





With the opening of 1866, the prospect of a reform bill 


jwas near. A deputation from the Reform League waited 
on Russell in January and secured from him the first official 
‘statement that reform would be a cabinet question.? In 


March Gladstone introduced his measure, which was to en- 





franchise seven-pound householders and ten-pound lodgers 
in boroughs, and fourteen-pound occupiers in counties—a 
more restricted measure than had been presented by any 
|Liberal government since 1848. The abundant testimony to 





the anti-reforming sentiment of parliament and the electorate 
‘that can be gained from pamphlets, the press, and public 
“speeches, is sufficient explanation of that fact. Gladstone 


|  7Ibid., September 5, 12, 1866. 

| 7£E.g., two months after it was formed it was considering the lock- 
| out in the file trade of Sheffield (Morning Star, May 2, 1866). 
Boring Star, January 13, 17, 1866; Reynolds’s, January 21. 

| *Some pamphlets of this nature are: Richard Varden, Hints on the 
| Principles of Self-Government and their Application to Parliamentary 
Reform, London, 1866 (in British Library of Political Science); E. J. 
| Gibbs, Parliamentary Reform Considered as a Question of Principle and 
| not of Party, London, 1866 (in the same library) ; The Final Reform Bill 
| of Earl Russell, K. Go London, 1866 (in British Museum) ; H. W. Cole, 
The Middle Classes and the Borough Franchise, London, 1866 (in the 
| British Museum); E. Wilson, Principles of Representation, in order to 
“secure due balance of classes, London, 1866. Plurality of voting and 
Proportional representation were much discussed; e.g., a pamphlet giv- 
4 














260 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 
















estimated that four hundred thousand new voters would 
added, of whom about half would be artisans; but thi 
would leave the middle classes still in the majority in bor 
oughs, which he considered a six-pound franchise would no 
have done.? 

Radicals and workingmen were disappointed, but gener; 
ally bowed to the inevitable and accepted it. Joseph Cowen 
M.P. for Newcastle, wrote his constituents that househol 
suffrage would not secure fifty votes in the House.? Th 
Reform League Council debated long on its policy, bu 
decided to accept the bill and assist to pass it.2 Its advi 
was followed by all its branches, of which there were no 
seventy ;* but Ernest Jones withdrew from the League be 
cause of their decision.® 

The League had by this time won for itself a position o 
some importance. Its first annual report showed that it ha 
held six hundred meetings, sent out over one hundred thou 
sand tracts, and spent £1603. It now called for an agitatin 
fund of ten thousand pounds. It was sweeping into its 
organization all the small and struggling political associations 
that existed among workingmen. A glance at the member- 
ship of its general council reveals the factions and move- 
ments, or fragments of movements, which it had absorbed. 

Its support of the government bill was therefore impor- 
tant. Howell’s letter book shows Bright urging it to 
strengthen the hands of the government,® and it acted ener- 


ing a speech by R. D. Macsie, Speech delivered at the meeting of the 
Liverpool Reform League . . . on plurality of votes as a needful 
element in any final scheme of Parliamentary Reform, London, 1867. 

*C. Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales, pp. 250-1 and 
note 1, p. 251. Also H. Cox, The Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867, pp. 
35-6. 

* English Leader, April 7, 1866. 

* Minutes, March 10 and 20. 

* First Annual Report, to April 13, 1866. 

* Reform League Letters, May 7 and 14, 1866. 

° March 19, 1866. 


| THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 261 
| 


etically toward that end. Howell wrote that only lack of 
ands prevented its holding an enthusiastic meeting every 
night,’ yet contributions from the middle-classes came in 
slowly and in small amounts.* Evidently the Radicals did 
not yet need the League sorely. The most important of its 
demonstrations in these two months was a large meeting, 
chiefly of trade-unionists, addressed by Professor Beesly, 
Thomas Hughes, Cremer, and Bradlaugh.2 Meetings to 
support the bill seem to have been general over the country. 
The National Reform Union was especially active. On 
March 27 it held a conference of one thousand delegates, 
who were addressed by Bright. By the time of the Easter 
recess, it was apparent that the bill was in grave danger 
from the Conservatives and obstructive Liberals, conse- 
iquently the agitation out of doors increased in vigor.® 
_ As the League had accepted Gladstone’s bill, so had Pot- 
ter’s L. W. M. A.® It arranged a trade-union demonstra- 
tion when danger to the bill was threatening.’ Represent- 
tives of sixteen unions, some of them national, were on the 
platform, and all of the speeches were made by trade-union- 
ists. A notable one was that of Dunning, who now came 
‘out for the policy of political activity by trade societies in 
view of the repeated treachery of the government on reform. 
‘That this was regarded as a trade-union demonstration is 
shown by the comment of the English Leader, that it proved 







*Letter to Greening, March 30, 1866. 

| ? Petty Cash Book records only about two hundred pounds con- 
‘tributed thus in the two months the bill was pending. 

_ * Morning Star, April 12, 1866. 

ee El. Cox, op. cit., p. 42. 

| ° Park, The Reform Bill of 1867, p. 95, gives a list of ten large 
meetings noted in the Times between April 2 and April 5. He under- 
estimates the expression of approval of the bill before the recess, because 
he follows the Times, which did not report such meetings regularly. 
‘The best source for such information is the Morning Star. 

° Morning Star, March 21, 1866. 

* Ibid., March 24, and April 4 and 6. (The last number describes the 
demonstration. ) 











262 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


the trades could look beyond questions merely of work a 
wages.! 

Another cause of the mounting public interest, besides 
the evident danger that the bill would fail, was the vituper- 
ative language used of the working classes in the debate. 
Bradlaugh’s paper said it was this which had raised interest 
to the pitch of a real agitation in the Easter recess.? That 
these popular demonstrations came from the lower orders of 
society, and not from the more respectable middle class, dur- 
ing the whole time that Gladstone’s bill was pending, is indi- 
cated in a series of detailed confidential reports made by a 
certain Conservative agent during those months. Time aftet 
time the statement is made that no important persons, no mer 
of weight or respectability, took part, while frequently the 
meetings are reported as composed of Chartists, extremists 
artisans, Dissenters, or rabble.? That the middle-class elec- 
torate on the whole were not behind even this moderate 
measure seems certain.* 

In parliament the bill was under discussion nearly fout 
months. It split the Liberal party along a line that marked 
off democratic progress from a political system based upor 
classes and property. Those who upheld the latter joinec 
with the Conservatives to defeat the pending measure. The 
Liberal schism was not permanent, so far as actual person: 
nel was concerned, but it foretold the coming adhesion of 
conservative Liberals to the Conservative party, which gradu- 
ally took place after 1867. 

* April 21, 1866. 

? National Reformer, May 13, 1866. How important a factor thi: 
was can be judged by the denunciation of Lord Elcho by the Londor 
Trades Council, though he was even then conducting their cause in 


parliament for an amendment of the Master and Servant Law (se 
Morning Star, April 12, December 14, 1867, and May 21, 1868). 


* Reform Meetings, the Real Facts, London, 1866. Reports to J 
Spofforth. A pamphlet in the British Museum. 

*The Fortnightly wrote in May that reform was “the most unpopuj 
lar subject of the day with existing constituencies.” 





THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 263 








It was felt that Gladstone’s measure was the “thin edge 
‘of a wedge.” It was believed that there would be constant 
pressure for a lowering of the qualification until universal 
suffrage should be reached.1 Bright, during the Easter 
recess, urged that the bill be used as a “lever’’ for the obtain- 
ing of a great deal more, an argument that drew from a 
‘member of the government the remark: “Confound Mr. 
Bright; his lever has done for our bill.’”” This consciousness 
of the lack of finality in the proposed settlement was further 
strengthened by expressions of public meetings, which almost 
universally pronounced it to be only a step in the right 
direction. The effective speeches of Robert Lowe, leader in 
the “Cave of Adullam” that joined the Conservative oppo- 
‘sition, “arrested all careless legislation on reform.” So 
stated the Fortnightly.” 
The Conservative attitude toward the bill was determined 
partly by principle and partly by party expediency. There 
can be no doubt that the party as a whole was opposed to 
_ any measure that would increase the proportionate power of 
the middle and working classes. To maintain the present 
balance of classes, so favorable to the land, was their general 
: desire. Even Lord Stanley, one of the most liberal of his 
party, in the recent electoral campaign had favored no more 
extension of the suffrage than Disraeli’s bill of 1859 had 
proposed—a lateral extension only. Conservatives would, 
however, be so implacably opposed to a measure such as this, 
which would increase middle-class influence in counties while 
preserving a middle-class majority in boroughs and adding 
the upper artisans who were Liberal almost to a man, that 
they would be willing to go much lower, if that should be 














*Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., IV. 431-3. Cox, op. cit., p. 38. 

2For these arguments see Seymour, op. cit., pp. 252-3, and G. C. 
Broderick, The Utilitarian Argument against Reform, as stated by Mr. 
Lowe (in Essays on Reform, London, 1867). For an analysis of the 
whole debate, see Trevelyan, Bright, pp. 352-3. 






264 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


the only possible escape from such a middle-class measure. 
Tory democracy might be an available counter-policy to such! 
a measure as this; but it is difficult to believe that Tory de- 
mocracy was a policy sought for its own sake. Toa sug- 
gestion made to Disraeli that he permit Russell to pass a| 
moderate measure and so settle the question, he had replied! 
that ‘‘such a course would seat the Whigs for a lifetime.””? 

Finally, on June 19, the government was beaten upon an| 
amendment that would have nullified the bill,? and within 
two weeks it had resigned, in spite of numerous indignant 
public meetings calling upon it to dissolve parliament. The! 
Reform League held huge meetings of twenty thousand or 
more on Clerkenwell Green and in Trafalgar Square.® 
Banners with the League tricolor were borne. Beales said 
he was leaving these meetings to be organized spontaneously 
by the workingmen.* In the provinces similar meetings 
were general. 

The crisis brought the National Reform Union and the 
Reform League temporarily into harmony. The Union held 
a great delegate meeting, with representatives from three 
hundred towns, at which Cremer, for the League, said they 
were willing to cooperate for household suffrage and would 
not block the movement by insisting upon their own pro- 
gram.° And Beales, in a public letter, declared the wil- 
lingness of the League to accept household suffrage as the 
basis of a renewed agitation, since it would be “a link 
between Manchester, Birmingham, and London.’ 


*Monypenny and Buckle, of. cit., IV. 430. For the middle-class 
nature of the bill, see this volume, pp. 430-3, and R. D. Baxter, Distri- 
bution of Seats and the Counties, London, 1866. 

*To substitute rating for rental. A house rated at seven pounds 
would rent for eight or nine pounds. 

* Morning Star, June 23 to 29. 

*Tbid., July 3. 

* Ibid., June 23, 26. 

* Tbid., June 21. 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 265 










With the accession of a Conservative government, the 
reform question entered upon a new phase. It now devel- 
oped dynamic possibilities which came near to achieving a 
dangerous crisis for the country. It was complicated by 
economic distress; it became entangled with Fenianism; it 
gave prospect at times of developing the ever ominous quali- 
ties of a class war through the operation of Tory opposition 
and the rapidly developing sense of antagonism of interests 
which the crisis in trade-unionism produced. It resulted in 
the enactment of democratic reform by a parliament which 
had a year before dedicated itself to the warding off of 
precisely that eventuality. 

_ Mention has been made of economic distress as a factor 
in the political agitation after the middle of 1866. Late in 
the spring of that year a sudden, sharp panic occurred, 
| whose influence spread rapidly over industrial England and 
‘whose evil effects were increased by simultaneous bad har- 
vests. These conditions gave a threatening and menacing 
-aspect to the reform agitation in the mind of the upper 
‘classes that it would perhaps not have otherwise possessed. 
It developed a psychological situation that far outweighed in 
| significance the real importance of the economic crisis as a 
political factor. The lesson of Chartism had not been for- 
gotten; unemployment and a drop in wages, coupled with an 
agitation for democracy, presented a specter of frightful 
“mien to a generation that remembered the hungry forties. 
Bright had for nearly ten years been prophesying just such a 
combination of circumstances which would finally wreak ven- 
geance upon an obstinate parliament, that would not heed 
the people’s demands while there was yet time. 

The details of the crisis and its economic effects have 
been worked out in detail elsewhere.2, From May to Aug- 





1Some evidence on this may be found in Park, op. cit., pp. 80-86. 
2In Park, The Reform Bill of 1867, chapter II. Also R. Baxter, 
The Panic of 1866, with its Lessons on the Currency Act, London, 1866. 


266 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 















ust the discount rate stood at ten per cent.; investment w 
curtailed, production lowered, wages decreased, and une 
ployment was general. At the same time, the prices of f 
rose rapidly on account of bad crops. Pauperism increase 
steadily from the middle of 1866 to 1871, showing the ling- 
ering effects of the depression.’ Especially in the poorer! 
quarters of large cities, most of all in London, where the 
population was perpetually near the starvation level, was the| 
distress acute.? The Spectator in January, 1867, described 
the misery of Greenwich, Deptford, and Poplar, where 
thirty thousand more dock laborers were out of work than 
usual, and the poor-rates were rising ominously.* The dis- 
tress all over the country continued through 1869. The| 
organized trades were greatly affected; as to the great mass 
of unskilled labor, Howell wrote in that year, “no one camn| 

. sound the depths of its absolute, deplorable misery.’ 

It was at the very beginning of the period of distress 
that Russell’s ministry resigned. From that moment the 
Reform League grew in influence and numbers, so that it 
became a powerful organization. It organized the major 
part of the agitation which converted the Conservative cabi- 
net to reform and enabled—or forced—Bright and Glad- 
stone to give final shape to the measure. Two things made 
the League formidable to the conservative classes—its num- 
bers and extent, particularly its close alliance with trade- 
unions, and, secondly, its codperation with Bright. All the 
forces of democracy seemed to be allied together for the 
undoing of the constitution and the destruction of the vested 
interests of property that flourished under its wing. 

* Mackay, History of the Poor Law, III. Appendix III. 

? Pauperism in London rose twenty-nine per cent. between 1866 and 
1868 (the Codperator, October 10, 1868). For a description of the 
wretchedness of East London, see Baxter, The National Income, Lon- 
don, 1868, pp. 45-6. 


* Quoted by Park, op. cit., pp. 81-2. 
“MS article in his Letter-book for 1869-72. 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 267 








| There is not space to relate the full story of the agitation. 
Its more significant features alone must suffice. Beginning 
| with a huge meeting of artisans in Trafalgar Square, where 
Beales and Bradlaugh spoke on the disaster which had be- 
fallen their cause,1 the League promoted an agitation 
fation-wide in extent. The League believed, with Ernest 
Jones, that temporizing with Whiggery had brought the 
reformers to the present pass, and that only by a vigorous 









_manhood-suffrage movement could any reform be forced 
from an unwilling parliament. In truth, the agitation from 
‘this point bore a decidedly Chartist aspect, and there is no 
‘question that while Bright and his party saw the value of it 
‘to coerce opposition, they were also nervous over the latent 
possibilities that resided in it. Before Derby had been in 
! office a month, the League and the Hyde Park riots had put 
! this new face upon the movement. 

| The League planned a demonstration in Hyde Park for 
the double purpose of “intimating the national will” on re- 
form and testing the right of the police commissioner to 
forbid such meetings in parks. It will be remembered the 
| League grew out of just such a prohibition, and the right 
of public meetings had been from the first one object it 
championed. The police commissioner forbade this meeting. 
: Beales led one section of the huge procession to the gates to 


assert their right to enter, then returned quietly to Trafalgar 


“Square. Another and larger section approached the park 
from another direction. The crowd swelled with the addi- 
tion of workmen just out from work. It became a huge, 

swaying mass of human beings and at the entrance to the 


park its pressure forced the railings to give way. Contem- 











1 Morning Star, July 2, 3, 4, quotes Pall Mall Gazette, that the crowd 
was made up of earnest artisans, and that there was no question that 
they wanted votes. The Star reckoned the number present at thirty to 
fifty thousand. 


268 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND A 


porary accounts of the affair vary, but it seems to be prob- 
able that this result was not contemplated or the result of an 
angry demonstration. Police to the number of about 
eighteen hundred were drawn up in the park; they now 
charged the crowd, but were powerless before it. Two 
troops of Horse Guards and two companies of Foot Guards 
were called in, but no further violence took place. 

An ugly temper had been aroused in the people, how- 
ever, and for three days they surged through the park in 
defiance of the police and the military. Walpole, the home 
secretary, was reduced to despair. The League council con- 
sidered whether to hold another meeting in the park. John 
Stuart Mill, fearing the people would go armed, went to the 
council meeting to use his influence to prevent a trial of 
strength with the government. He said afterwards that 
Beales and his chief colleague, Colonel Dickson, did not need 
persuading, but the workingmen did, and he could move them 
only by showing it meant revolution. He says in his Auto- 
biography he believes he was the only man, except Bright or 
Gladstone, who had influence enough with the workingmen 
to restrain them.” Finally Beales prevailed upon Walpole 
to remove the soldiers and police, promising that the League 
would restore order. This it had no difficulty in doing. The 
whole episode was a humiliation for the government and an 
exhibition both of the influence of the League and the good 
sense of its officers.® 


*One of the best descriptions is in Henry Broadhurst’s Auto- 
biography, pp. 33-40. He was present. See also Morning Star, July 20, 
23, for preliminary plans, and July 24, 27, for very full account of the 
affair. Also, the English Leader, July 28. An account hostile to the 
League, and patently unfair, is in a pamphlet, The Government and the 
People! The Great Reform League Demonstration in Hyde Park. 

* Pp. 165-7. 

*For further important details see pie English Leader, August 11, 
1866, and the National Reformer, July 2 

















THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 269 


The League followed up the Hyde Park affair with a 
great meeting in Agricultural Hall, where it was said be- 
tween twenty-five thousand and forty thousand people gath- 
ered, the organized bodies of workingmen coming with 
banners flying. Mill was there to speak in behalf of the 
right of public meeting; P. A. Taylor also spoke, and Brad- 


laugh. The English Leader rightly declared, “Such an as- 


sembly in London reduces the Reform question to one 
simply of date and extent.” The impetus given to the 
agitation by this clash with the government was marked. 
The National Reformer wrote at once that if the Tories kept 
up such tactics they would find “that they, and not the Radi- 
cals, are tending in a very summary manner to Americanize 
British institutions.’’? 

But the effectiveness of the whole reform agitation of 
1866-7 lay above all in the participation in it of organized 
labor. This fact gave weight to the Reform League and also 
to the London Working Men’s Association. Goldwin Smith. 
said to the Oxford Reform League, soon after the Hyde 
Park episode, that he feared that— 

The struggle may in the end cease to be one between parties in 
Parliament and become one between classes, the class represented by 
the House of Commons on the one side, and the class represented 
by the trade unions on the other. The true statesman would 
almost rather drag the working men within the pale of the consti- 


tution by force than suffer them thus to organize themselves into 
a separate community outside it.? 


It should be noted that the United Kingdom Alliance of 
Organized Trades was just being formed at Sheffield. In 
the background of the developing agitation constantly ap- 


tAugust 4. Also National Reformer, August 5. See Broadhurst’s 
Life, p. 33. The agitation of the Queen and ministry on this occasion 
was so great as to cause the use of troops. A message was sent to the 
Queen every half-hour upon the state of London (The Working Man, 
August 4, 1866). 

? August 12. 

° Morning Star, July 24, 1866. 





270 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND : 


_—s 


pears the embittered industrial struggle, which reached a 
crisis in 1866-7. : 

The conjunction of League and trade-unions was por- 
tentous enough; their codperation with Bright completed a 
sum of threats to the stability of English institutions that | 
could not be withstood by those in authority. The last | 
months of 1866 saw a series of joint demonstrations by the 
three. In August, at Brookfield, in Birmingham, a crowd 
of, it was said, two hundred thousand gathered from the 
Midlands country to hear John Bright. Many of the trades 
in Birmingham had already joined the League in their cor- 
porate capacity,’ and all joined in this demonstration, by 
advice of the Trades Council.2 One whole division of the 
monster procession, ten thousand strong, was made up of the 
trades marching with their banners. Other divisions were | 
of friendly societies, temperance societies, and of non-society 
men from the local works. Thousands of artisans wore the 
badge of the Reform League. Resolutions were adopted for 
manhood suffrage, Bright declaring he had no fear of it.® 
The significance of the demonstration was at once recognized. — 
The Economist said the Conservatives could not shelve re- 
form now, even for one session. The press united in 
admitting that it was an event of importance. 

Other League meetings were held—at Manchester with 
Ernest Jones for chief speaker;° at Halifax, where the 
Trade Council joined with the League to convene it;® at 
the Guild Hall in London, where the League and the L. W. 
M. A. acted in concert and where the speakers were all work- 


| 


* Webb, op. cit., p. 248, note 1. 

? Morning Star, August 16, 1866. 

* Ibid., August 28, September 3. 

* Quoted in the Morning Star, September 3. 
*Jbid., August 11, 13. 

° Ibid., September 6. 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 271 


_ingmen.* All the time the League was growing in mem- 
| bership. By September it was so strong, in Lancashire, 
Cheshire, and Derbyshire that those counties were erected 
into a Northern Department, with offices and a full staff of 
officers at Manchester.2, On September 17 the Scottish 
National Reform League was formed, identical with the 
Reform League in program and closely affiliated with it, 
practically its Scottish section. Constant improvement in 
the central machinery of the League was made. It was try- 
ing also to raise ten thousand pounds for agitation purposes, 
and Howell wrote to many Liberals for contributions, ex- 
plaining that the League hoped to follow the procedure of 
the Anti-Corn Law League. It asked for aid even if its 
principles were not accepted, for it would accept any good 
measure that had a chance of passing.* 

Yet the Liberals, even the most advanced, except Bright, 
held back from the League. By October three men had 
given two hundred fifty pounds® each and one one hundred 
pounds. Howell sadly wrote that the fund was not growing, 
adding a sentence that reveals to the historian, if it did not to 
Howell, the reason for the ill-success: “If we had the money 
our movement would become one of the greatest triumphs of 
modern days.”® It was precisely such a triumph that mid- 
dle-class Liberals and even Radicals would have done much 
to prevent. 


*Tbid., August 9. 

* Ibid., September 10, 1866. Ernest Jones was very prominent here. 

*Facts given in a pamphlet, The Great Reform Demonstration at 
Glasgow, 16 Oct. 1866, Glasgow, 1866. (In Manchester Free Refer- 
ence Library.) Howell’s correspondence shows that Glasgow had hesi- 
tated to go as far as the League did. (Letters December 19, 1865, and 
February 24, 1866.) 

*See letter to J. W. Woodley, September 29, and others dated 
a 15, 19, 1866 (to R. C. Hanbury, M.P., and Isaac Holden, 

° These were S. Morley. Sir W. Lawson, and T. Thommison. 

*To R. Kell, of Bradford, October 17, 1866. 


272 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


But Bright was willing to use the League as an instru- | 
ment against the government, and its meetings multiplied.* 
A second great meeting of Bright, the League, and the trades, 
and, this time, the National Reform Union, was held in Man- 
chester, where Bright found himself in company with orators 
of the stamp of Ernest Jones, E. O. Greening, Odger, Lu- 
craft, and W. P. Roberts, the “‘pitmen’s attorney.”? On 
every such occasion Bright denounced the Tories unspar- 
ingly, hoping thereby to create greater popular pressure, and 
also, perhaps, to draw the prospective working-class elector- 
ate more closely toward the Liberal camp. 

Next Bright appeared at a West Riding demonstration at 
Leeds, where Beales and Ernest Jones also spoke. Many 
trades and friendly societies marched in the procession. 
Chartist emblems of white and green were conspicuous. In 
concluding its description of this demonstration, declared to 
be the most magnificent of all, the English Leader wrote: ; 
“The blood of the Chartists of ‘forty-eight is the seed of 
the Reform movement of 1866.” All the members of par- 
liament for the West Riding declined to be present, Baines 
frankly because of his opposition to manhood suffrage.* A 
week later occurred at Glasgow another exhibition of the 
Bright-League-trades alliance.* It was the greatest political 
demonstration that had ever been held in Scotland. A pro- 
cession of thirty thousand, formed of the organized trades 
and men from workshops, mines, and foundries, covered five 


1 Bright was writing the Council to push their agitation (Minutes, 
September 7, 1866). Bradlaugh’s paper declared that in September 
hardly a night passed without a meeting somewhere, and in one week it 
noted thirty (National Reformer, September 9, 16, 1866). 

2 Morning Star, September 26; English Leader, September 29, 1866. 

> Account in Morning Star, October 9, and English Leader, October 
20, 27. The president of the League here was Alderman Carter, who 
was elected to Parliament in 1868 by the votes of workingmen. 

*Pamphlet, The Great Reform Demonstration at Glasgow, 16 Oct. 
1866, Glasgow, 1866 (Official account by League). Also Morning Star, 
October 17, and Trevelyan, Bright, p. 362, note 1 

















THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 273 


miles of the Glasgow streets ; then came the open air meeting, 
which adopted resolutions for manhood suffrage and the 


ballot, and at night Bright spoke in the City Hall. Thus 
was the regular procedure at all these events complete. 


Among the speakers here were George Potter, Alexander 


_ Macdonald of the Miners’ Association, George Newton of 
_ the Glasgow Trades Council and also secretary of the com- 
_ mittee on the Master and Servant Law, the president and 


secretary of the Amalgamated Tailors, and other trade repre- 
sentatives. It is worth noting that the operative masons 
carried a banner inscribed: “Nine hours—a new era in the 


_ history of Labour.” Bright’s speech discussed the reasons 
_ why the poor should have the vote; then only would legis- 


lation be just to them, the land monopoly disappear, and with 
it unemployment.* 

The League was not altogether contented with its rela- 
tions with Bright. The council, just before the Leeds demon- 
stration, seriously discussed the matter and dwelt upon the 
fact that they could not do without Bright’s leadership, yet 
could not give up their principles. Beales stated that at 
Manchester he had offered to turn over the whole League 
organization, then numbering two hundred branches, to 
Bright, if he would come out for manhood suffrage.2 The 
League earnestly sought the cooperation of the middle classes 
and was disappointed not to achieve it any more extensively. 
Thus Howell consoled a League correspondent : 

Don’t be disheartened at not having big names on your committee; 
it’s our work and we must plod on in good faith and hope. Let 


the middle classes see that we fight our own battles and they will 
come to us.® 


1 Speeches on Questions of Public Policy, by John Bright, ed. Rog- 
ers, London, 1868, II. 199-212. Also Trevelyan, Bright, pp. 365-7. 

27Reform League Letters, October, 1866, discuss this; also Morning 
Star, October 6, 1866, reports council’s discussions. 

> Written October 15, 1866. A comment on the official Liberal atti- 
tude toward the League is afforded by the fact that Beales was dismissed 


274 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


The trades were taking constantly a larger part in the 
agitation. In October the Hatters’ Society of London, by 
vote of the members, became a branch of the League.! In 
December the London Working Men’s Association suc- 
ceeded in bringing the unions out on a large scale in a 
strictly trades’ demonstration. It was estimated that from 
twenty to thirty thousand artisans marched in the proces- 
sion,” though it was said several large trades refused to 
take part because of those who were managing it’—again 
perhaps the feud between Potter and the council. The next 
day the same trades held a meeting in St. James’ Hall, which 
was addressed by Bright. Only two metropolitan members 
were present, though all had been invited. Bright again 
expressed his approval of political action by the trades, which 
he had advised eight years before.* 

A few weeks after this the Reform League began to plan 
a similar demonstration to take place the next February, 
upon the day Disraeli was to introduce his reform proposals. 
The London Trades Council unanimously adopted a resolu- 
tion declaring its adhesion to the principles of the Reform 
League and advising all trade-unionists, either as corporate 
bodies or individually, to participate in the forthcoming 
demonstration.° 

The increasing interest of the trades was evinced in many 
ways. The West End Cabinet Makers formed into a League 
branch in January,® and their example was soon followed 


from his office of Revising Barrister for Middlesex because of his connec- 
tion with it. (Morning Star, November 3, 1866.) 


* Morning Star, October 24, 1866. 
* [bid., December 4, 10, 11. The Working Man, December 8. 


*The Examiner, quoted in the Manchester Examiner, January 14, 
1867. 


* Morning Star, December 5. G. B. Smith, Bright, pp. 265-6. Jeph- 
son, The Platform, Its Rise and Progress, II. 456. 


° Morning Star, December 20, 1866. 
* Morning Star, January 15, 1867. 








THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 275 


by the West End Shoemakers and the Tailors.t Another 
London branch was of the goldsmiths and jewellers. As to 
the provinces, in Birmingham nearly all the trades joined the 
League in their corporate capacity, while in Wolverhampton 


the carpenters and upholsterers became branches.* Howell’s 


correspondence contains a letter to a man in Camberwell, 


which refers to his trade’s taking up the League principles 
unanimously, and another to a man in Merthyr thanking him 
for bringing his trade into the League. The League min- 
; utes contain a report by Odger of the formation of a branch 
in Leamington by the trades.* Early in 1867 the Edin- 


burgh Trade Council became a branch of the Scottish Na- 


tional Reform League. 





; 
| 
} 


| 


The rapid increase of interest in the reform question on 
the part of the trades early in 1867 was due mainly to the 
judicial decision handed down in January in the case of 
Hornby v. Close, which rendered the legal status of trade- 
unions extremely precarious by taking from them the pro- 


tection of the Friendly Societies Act of 1855 and thus plac- 


ing their funds at the mercy of defaulters. At the same 
moment, it had become certain that the government intended 
to issue a Royal Commission to investigate the whole subject 


of trade combinations, having been provoked thereto by the 


Sheffield outrages, among other causes. 


1An announcement of the opening of a branch by the West End 
Society of Boot Closers on March 24, 1867, appears in the League letter 
book. A letter of Howell’s dated January 18, 1867, mentions the Shoe- 
makers, Cabinet Makers, Hatters, “etc.,”’ as having formed branches. 
The Star of April 10, 1867, notes the Tailors’ branch of the Reform 
League. This is also mentioned in an official list of branches published 
some time in 1867 in the form of a circular. (In the Howell collection.) 


? Official list of branches mentioned above. This list may have been 
published early in the year and cannot be taken as complete evidence as 
to the number of trades that joined the League. The Webbs perhaps 
underestimate the number (Trade Unionism, p. 248, note 1). 

* Letters dated April 16 and January 18, 1867. 

“Minutes for October 12, 1866. 


5 Manchester Examiner and Times, February 9, 1867. 


276 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Delegate meetings of the League and trade-unions to- 
gether with representatives of friendly and temperance socie- 
ties met to plan the above-mentioned reform demonstration. 
These meetings were largely attended. The individual trades 
held aggregate meetings and for the most part adopted the 
advice of their delegates to take part.1 At the delegate 
meetings the Royal Commission and the new status of unions 
were frequently discussed. The Manchester Examiner 
considered the commission to be the government’s answer to 
the political activity of trade societies.? Beesly wrote that 
the decision in Hornby v. Close brought the Amalgamated 
Carpenters almost to a man into this League demonstration, 
whereas in December they had refused to participate.* 

The public was much disturbed over the prospect of the 
demonstration. Derby admitted in the House of Lords that 
it was dangerous. The Morning Star wrote that trade- 
unions had been transformed into “a grand and irresistible 
machinery for the promotion of the reform cause.”® Espe- 
cially significant is the fact that even the Radical press op- 
posed the coming event with what one of them described as 
a note of terror in its discussions. “They appeal, conjure, 
and threaten as if peril were imminent. They talk of the 
projected demonstration as if it were to be the first act in the 
drama of civil war.’’® 

The demonstration itself was of the usual character. 
Many trades marched with banners and bands; League 
branches were there and delegations from the allied Scottish, 
Oxford, and Irish Reform Leagues, the last of which had 
recently been formed. The National Reform Union and 

* Morning Star, January 23, 26. 

* Minutes, February 6, 1867. 

° Editorial of February 9, 1867. 

‘Tn the Fortnightly Review, March 1, 1867. 
* January 17, 1867. 


° Manchester Examiner remarked this of the Daily News, the Ex- 
aminer and the Nonconformist (January 15, 1867). 





THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 277 


the London Working Men’s Association were also repre- 
sented. At a huge meeting in Agricultural Hall speeches 
were made by Beales, Beesly, Ernest Jones, Professor Thor- 
old Rogers, and The O’Donoghue. The last two were presi- 
dents respectively of the Oxford and Irish Leagues.* 
Disraeli finally brought in his measure in March. Derby, 
convinced of the genuineness of the agitation by the close of 
1866, had had much to do to convince Disraeli, who hoped, 
if he delayed, the Liberals would become disorganized over 
the question.” Disraeli’s correspondence with Derby in 


December shows how averse he was to a reduction of the 





borough qualification and to a lodger franchise. By Janu- 


_ ary, however, he considered the question of reform “para- 
_ mount’’—a change “‘clearly based on a revised estimate of 
_ the state of public opinion.”* And so the cabinet seized 


upon the “great phrase,’”’ household suffrage, as the basis of 
their measure, meaning to hedge it about with such safe- 
guards as dual voting and personal payment of rates in order 
to render it safe and maintain the balance of classes with 
little change. The cabinet was torn asunder over the ques- 
tion. The bill proposed to enfranchise householders in bor- 
oughs who had a residential qualification of two years and 
paid their rates in person. It would also have given two 
votes to those who paid a certain amount in direct taxes. 
Buckle remarks that “strangely enough” great popular 
meetings treated the bill as a virtual denial of working- 
men’s rights.° This is not in the least strange, in view of 
the fact that it disfranchised compound householders, to 


* Accounts in Morning Star, February 12 and a circular: Only Au- 
thorized and Official Programme. National Reform League Demon- 
stration, Monday, February 11, 1867 (in British Museum). 


_ ? Monypenny and Buckle, of. cit., IV. 453, 459 ff. 
* Tbid., p. 461. 
* Ibid., pp. 486-7. 


* Ibid., p. 536. 


278 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 





which class the vast majority of the occupiers of cheape 
houses belonged ; that it provided no lodger franchise, which 
was an especial grievance in London; that it required two 
years’ residence and gave a dual vote to property. The bill 
was condemned on one or more of these grounds by all 
reform organizations. { 

The Reform League realized that its agitation would | 
have to continue to keep the Liberals screwed up to the point | 
of rejecting the bill or improving it. Howell’s letters de- | 
clared that they had not only the government to fight but the ~ 
House of Commons.!' Once he wrote: “Gladstone seems 
trimming. We must keep him up to the mark.”* The 
council of the Northern Department of the League voted to 
recommend to the London executive a “‘people’s parliament” — 
to prepare their own bill.? A week later a delegate meet-_ 
ing of the League and the trades in London adopted a resolu-— 
tion for a national convention of delegates from all the 
League branches, other reform bodies, and trade, friendly, 
and other societies of workingmen. A circular was printed 
calling for the election of these delegates. One argument it 
used was the danger in which trade-unions stood.* 

These delegate meetings in London had now become 
fortnightly occurrences at the Sussex Hotel in Bouverie 
Street.> Often as many as two or three hundred delegates 
were present. Public meetings were now held weekly in 
Trafalgar Square, both by the League and the L. W. M. A. 






7 


: 












* Letter of March 3. 

* Letter of March 22. This was doubtless in view of Gladstone’s 
attempt to have a five-pound rating franchise substituted for the govern- 
ment measure. It must be remembered that five-pound rating meant six- 
pound to eight-pound rental. This move of Gladstone’s was bitterly 
denounced by the League. See League Letters, April 10, 15, 18. 

® Manchester Examiner, March 12. 

* A copy of the circular is inserted in Howell’s letter book. 

® Resolutions to make them such passed February 13. (Minutes of 
General Council of League.) 








a 

















THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 279 


Both organizations sent large deputations to Gladstone to 
protest against the bill. 

The Reform League was by this time strong enough to 
be a power and to create the fear in those who hesitated on 


reform that it was capable of becoming a nation-wide, revo- 


lutionary, class movement. It was not that; perhaps it never 
could have been; but to the governing classes, with memories 
of the not wholly dissimilar Chartist movement present in 
mind, the risk that might be involved in stubborn opposition 
was too great ‘to be taken lightly. 

The formation of the closely affiliated Scottish League in 
1866 has been noted. It seems to have been strongly sup- 


_ ported by the Scottish trades.2 In December, 1866, the 


former Northern Political Union of Tyneside was revived 
as the Northeastern Department of the Reform League 


_ under Joseph Cowen, Jr.; and, by the opening of 1867, an 


Irish Reform League, identical in program with the English 
and Scottish Leagues and in close alliance with them, was 


in operation. There was also an Oxford Reform League 


that held the same relation to the original League. Its presi- 


_ dent was Professor Thorold Rogers, who soon lost his chair 


in the University on that account.? 

As to the principal League, by the first of December, 
1866, it had sixty-three metropolitan and one hundred and 
seventy provincial branches.t* At the time of its sec- 
ond annual report, April 20, 1867, its branches numbered 
one hundred and seven in London and three hundred and 


1 Morning Star, March 25, 26; April 1. See Broadhurst’s Biography, 
p. 33, for an account of the busy life then led by a workingman reformer. 

* National Reformer, January 13, 1867, for demonstration at Dum- 
fries; Manchester Examiner, February 9, 1867, for one at Edinburgh. 
Both were largely trade affairs. 

* Birmingham Post, February 8, 1868. 

*These and the following data are taken from the MS of the sec- 
ond annual report, and from a printed circular describing the organiza- 
tion of the League in 1867. 


280 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 








thirty-seven in the provinces. It had now four departments 
each with a full staff of officers—the Midlands Department, — 
with headquarters at Birmingham; the Northern, centered at | 
Manchester ; the Northeastern; and the West Riding Depart-_ 
ment, whose center was Leeds. These were in addition to. 
the area directly organized under the London executive. The | 
League claimed its organization to be “more complete in its | 
details than any other political association this country has 
Seen” 

The League, by April, 1867, was taking to itself the 
credit for the fact that the Tories were then outbidding the 
Liberals. The prospective victory would, it considered, have 
to be followed up by further reforms and by sending work- 
ingmen to parliament.t| The League council had already 
advised its branches to form into electoral committees.? | 
The dissolution of parliament on the reform question was, of 
course, a possibility at any moment. 

To add a few more data with regard to the League: the © 
Midlands Department in its second annual report stated that 
in the year following August, 1866, it had held six hundred 
public meetings, had enrolled twenty thousand members, 
its executive had met one hundred fifty times, and its in- 
come had amounted to seven hundred seventy-six pounds, of 
which amount only one hundred seventy pounds had been 
donated.* The Northern Department during 1867 had a 
total income of £1002, to which no single contribution was 
larger than seventy pounds.* The ledger of the central 
executive at London shows total receipts of £1429 between 
September, 1866, and April 20, 1867. These figures indi- 


, 
j 


mein ot 


*> Second annual report. 

? Resolutions adopted at Council meeting, from Howell’s letter-book. 
No more definite date than March, 1867. 

° Printed in the Birmingham Daily Post. August 6, 1867. 

*Reform League. Northern Department. Report of First Annual 
Meeting, Manchester, November 9, 1867. (In Manchester Free Refer- 
ence Library.) 





ee ap nw nae 


nn 


THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 281 


cate the slight financial support the League received from 
the middle classes and make it clear that it was not a middle- 
class movement. The council was constantly lamenting the 
lack of adequate funds. Beales stated at the second annual 
meeting that so little help had come from the middle classes 
that had it not been for the unpaid services of workingmen 
the League could not have accomplished its great work.} 

The fact is, that the middle-class Radicals were operating 
through their own National Reform Union. Some working- 
men belonged to both League and Union, but the former 


_ remained primarily a working-class body and the latter mid- 








dle-class. A list of the leading members of the Union, fill- 
_ing two columns of the Morning Star for September 25, 


1866, is practically the roster of the Radical party leaders, 
Manchesterite, nonconformist, and independent. 

By that date the Union claimed a hundred and eighty- 
six branches. At a conference in November, to which six 
hundred delegates came from a hundred and fifty towns, 
plans were made to raise fifty thousand pounds. Several 
thousand-pound subscriptions were made on the spot.” 
Here the question of relations with the League came up, and 
the discussion revealed general opposition to any concession 
to the League’s platform, but also a lively apprehension of 
“dividing the Liberal party” now and in the future after 
reform should have been won. The annual report of the 
Union in February, 1867, placed the number of branches at 
one hundred and ninety-two. The Union had held six hun- 
dred and thirty meetings in the previous year and had pre- 
sented petitions with over half a million signatures; it had 
issued over half a million tracts and thirty thousand mem- 
ership cards.* It was under the management of a regular 


* Morning Star, May 23, 1867. 

* Morning Star, November 20, 1866. 

’ Manchester Examiner, February 20, 1867. Compare the size of 
the League, which in April of this year had 440 branches, exclusive of 


282 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Cte a 


paid agent and kept prominent advertisements in the news- 
papers. 

It has been explained in this study that such a union of 
classes as Radicals and working-class leaders had striven for 
since the time of the Complete Suffrage Movement had until 
now proved impossible to effect, chiefly because of antagon- | 
istic ultimate aims. The agitation of 1866-7 presented the 
same elements, though under cover of a certain amount of 
cooperation between the two classes. An examination yet a_ 
little further into expressions of opinion during the agitation 
tends to substantiate this statement. This evidence goes far 
to justify Dicey’s judgment that the reform of 1867 was 
sought by labor to secure legislation in favor of collectivism, 
its object being social rather than political.t It also con- 
firms the belief that this essential feature of the agitation 
was much clearer to the minds of all classes than is some- 
times supposed. If that be true, then the amount of codp- | 
eration that took place between labor and the middle classes 
can be accounted for only on the following grounds: (1) 
the strength of labor that compelled a political readjustment ; 
(2) Victorian optimism, which was confident that the dan- 
gerous tenets of workingmen would yield to good bourgeois 
sense, when workingmen were no longer excluded from the 
common life of the state; and (3) the fact that Radicalism 
without labor was a stunted growth. 

Edmond Beales frankly avowed his objects to be social 
rather than political. His aim was “that of promoting as 
much as possible the political power, and by that power, the 
physical welfare of the people. Reform of the representa- 
tion is only the means to our end, the end being the material 
welfare of the great masses of the community.”? In a 


4 
¥ 


the Scottish, Irish and Oxford Leagues. It had thus increased from 230 
branches in December. 

1A. V. Dicey, Law and Public Opinion, p. 253. 

? Morning Star, August 3, 1868. 








THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 283 


speech before the Reform League early in its career he had 
declared that reform would mean the securing to labor of a 
fair and just recompense and the banishment of much pov- 
erty and misery.‘ Howell’s correspondence during the 
period contains such arguments as that political power would 
prove the best cure for periodical distress,? and that the 
League’s program would be a remedy for landlordism.® 
The abolition of pauperism and unemployment was a con- 
stant objective with workingmen reformers. Thus Holyoake 
placed that as a motive second only to the one that was ever 
first with him, the honor and dignity of full citizenship.* 
Thomas Hughes, one of the few members of parliament 
workingmen could claim as their own, declared compulsory 
education and extension of the factory acts as objectives of 
reform; while Henry Fawcett, another, to his constituents 
of Brighton, answered the argument that parliament already 
listened to the working classes by pointing to the fever dens 
of great cities, the poor law system which imposed the bur- 
den of the poor upon the poor, and the lack of universal, free 
education.® George Odger declared in a League meeting in 
1865 that among the objects in view were a reduction of 
hours for women and children and an increase in wages for 
agricultural labor.® 

Evidence enough has already been adduced to show the 
prominence of the trade-union question in the agitation. 
The alliance between the League and the trades seemed to 
the propertied classes to threaten the country with Chartism 
under a new form. In fact, Chartist tactics were really 
threatened by the League. Plans for a national convention 

* Tbid., March 5, 1866. 

*Letter of January 24, 1867. 

* Letter of March 21, 1867. 

‘From a petition he presented to parliament through Mill. See 
English Leader, April 6, 1867. 


5 Morning Star, January 16, 1867. 
° Quarterly Review, January, 1866, pp. 262 ff. 


284 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


were actually made, as has been pointed out above. At one 
League-trades conference of two hundred and fifty delegates, 
it was resolved enthusiastically that unless some prospect of 
the enfranchisement of the working classes were held out, it 
would “be necessary to consider the propriety of those 
classes adopting a universal cessation from labour until their 
political rights are conceded.”* Potter made a similar sug- 
gestion at Trafalgar Square a week later.2 Bradlaugh’s 
paper suggested a refusal to pay taxes and a people’s parlia- 
ment. A deputation of three hundred from the League 
and trades, including all the largest unions, waited on Dis- 
raeli and expressed disapproval of his measure in belligerent 
words.* A comment of the Radical Manchester Examiner 
after the agitation was over is worth quoting: 
The questions at issue between Capital and Labour have thrust 
themselves into the very front rank of practical problems. 
The Geneva conference [of the International] illustrates the con- 
nection between the trades’ unions in England and the democratic 
movements on the continent; an international fact analogous to 
that suggested by the co-operation between Mr. Beales and Mr. 
Potter, between the Reform League and the London Trades.® 

That certain of the social implications of reform were 
apparent to the upper and middle classes is unquestionable. 
The Spectator believed that a House of Commons that rep- 
resented labor as well as capital would provide compulsory 
education, compulsory hygiene, and perhaps compulsory in- 
surance against thriftlessness, sickness, and old age; would 
settle the difficulties between labor and capital so as to render 
strikes obsolete, would revolutionize housing conditions, and 
would ultimately extinguish pauperism.6 The Times de- 

* Minutes, February 27, 1867. Also Morning Star, February 28. 

? Park, Reform Bill of 1867, p. 125. 

* National Reformer, April 21, 1867. 

* Morning Star, April 3, 1867. 

° December 31, 1867. 


* Quoted in Morning Star, January 14, 1867. See also the Quarterly 
Review for April, 1866, pp. 543 ff. 














THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 285 


clared workingmen only wanted reform to strengthen their 
hands against their employers and that the middle classes 
feared nothing so much as democracy. Mill wrote soon after 
1867 that he believed the active leaders of English working- 
men were socialists of one sort or another, though believing 
in gradual change.’ Shaftesbury’s speech in the Lords on 
the reform bill emphasized the danger of socialism. After 
asserting his intimate knowledge of workingmen and their 
ideas, he declared, “I am sure that a large proportion of the 
working classes have a deep and solemn conviction : 
that property is not distributed as property ought to be; 
that to take away, by a legislative enactment, that 
which is in excess, with a view to bestow it on those who 
have insufficient means, is not a breach of any law, human 
or Divine.”” Dicey, in one of a volume of essays on 
reform published in 1867, enumerated as arguments valid 
with the opponents of reform that taxes collected from the 
rich would be spent on the enjoyments of the poor, and that 
workingmen would “establish laws for the protection of 
labour as oppressive as the laws which English gentlemen 
established for the protection of corn.”* One pamphleteer 
besought Derby to prevent 1f possible the “political extinction 
of intelligence and property,’* while another baldly stated 
the whole issue to be one of the rich against the poor, of 
which fact he believed most people to be conscious.® 
The difficulty the middle classes felt in cooperating 
with workingmen became acute in April. Then it was that 
the National Reform Union began to try to establish itself 
* Mill, Socialism, ed. Bliss, p. 65. 


7 Hodder, Shaftesbury, III. 221. 

7A. V. Dicey, “The Balance of Classes,” in Essays on Reform, 
London, 1867, p. 74. 

“E. W. Cox, A Proposal for a Constitutional Reform Bill; a Letter 
to the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Derby, 3d. edit., London, 1867. 

° A Letter to the Rt. Hon, the Earl of Derby. By One of the People, 
London, 1867. 


286 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


in London. This dismayed the League. It believed that 
the Union was preparing to try to win the trades away 
from it.1. In May Howell wrote that such a move would 


: 


< ea 


ae 


é 
p 


q 


“throw back our cause immeasurably.”* When the Man- — 


chester men actually came to London to launch their move- 
ment, Beales, at a conference called for the purpose, be- 
sought them to do nothing that would seem hostile to the 
League, which possessed, he asserted, the hearts of ninety- 
nine out of every hundred workingmen in the country.* 





The tone of the negotiations between the two bodies reveals — 
much unfriendliness and suspicion, especially on the part of | 


the League, which saw in this another attempt to sacrifice a 
working-class to a middle-class movement. The Union, 
on the other hand, insisted that the strength of the manhood 
suffrage movement in London had prevented the middle 
classes there from speaking out effectively for reform. 
Bright, Mill, Forster, and Baines were behind the new policy. 
Within less than a fortnight after it was initiated, the re- 
form bill was enacted into law, and it embodied the essential 
principles of the program of the Union. 

If advanced reformers were divided between Union 
and League, the whole Liberal party was in no better state. 
Gladstone refused to stand for household suffrage. This 
alienated a body of influential Radicals. In fact, when the 
Liberals a few weeks later came to contend for straight 
household suffrage, they had no thought of getting it.” 
At the same time, Gladstone’s. proposed five-pound line was 
too democratic for the Whig element in the party. 


2 Morning Star, May 11, 1867. Also Howell’s correspondence for 
April. 

* Letter to the Manchester secretary, May 15. 

* Morning Star and Manchester Examiner, May 11. 

* At a party meeting. See Morning Star, March 22, 1867. 

* Morley, Gladstone, II. 224-6. Gladstone stated this later. 











SS 





THE REFORM ACT OF 1867 287 


Thus the Liberal members had no agreed policy toward 
the pending measure. It went into committee, therefore, to 
be shaped by Radical hands. Neither Liberals nor Conser- 


_ vatives were courageous enough to withstand the democratic 
- proposals there made, with the agitation out of doors in full 
swing. One by one Disraeli abandoned the checks that 
were to have made household suffrage safe, and Gladstone 


found himself abetting an amendment that would abolish 
compounding for rates and thus admit all householders, even 
the poorest, who paid their rates at all. 

One author says that the final act was “the half accidental 
result of the balance of forces in the House, and of the 
evolution of attack and defence performed on a swamp of 
party expediency.’* This is perhaps a fair judgment so 
far as the major parties in parliament were concerned, but 
outside of parliament men were demanding reform with a 
voice that spoke even in parliament through John Bright 


and John Stuart Mill. The country was wrought to a 


high pitch of excitement. A settlement of the question, 
and a fairly democratic settlement, had become a necessity. 
When the repeal of the local and other compound house- 
holder acts had been carried, which democratized the mea- 
sure, Disraeli wrote: 


Two months ago such a repeal was impossible; but a very great 
change has occurred in the public mind on this matter. Two months 
ago Gladstone would have placed himself at the head of the Vestries 
and “civilization”; now, we were secretly informed, he intended to 
reorganize on the principle of the repeal of the Local Acts.? 


Disraeli, practically upon his own responsibility, accepted 
the amendment for his party, which step he said “would 
destroy the present agitation and extinguish Gladstone and 


o.’"8 


1G. L. Dickinson, Development of Parliament in the Nineteenth 
Century, p. 63. 

?Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., IV. 540. 

* Tbid., p. 540. 


288 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


The actions of both party leaders were dictated primarily 
by the fact that, as Morley expresses it, “the tide of public 
opinion had suddenly swelled to flood.”' Neither could — 
face the prospect of an antagonized new electorate. 
Disraeli’s expression during the progress of the bill of his” 
hope of “realizing the dream of my life and re-establishing | 
Toryism on a national foundation,” is to be reconciled with 
his constant opposition to even a moderately democratic 
reform to the very last only by attributing such opposition 
to the party rather than to Disraeli himself. Or perhaps it 
may be legitimate to surmise that Disraeli’s active imagina- | 
tion in those months of 1867 was already sketching plans 
for the winning and organizing of the new voters for Con- 
servatism, as an offset to middle-class Liberalism.? That 
such a possibility had occurred to him even earlier is certain. 

The net result of all these party struggles was the enact- 
ment of the essential principle for which the Radical party 
had been contending since 1848, though on a more sweeping 
scale than even Bright had ever stood for. Bright had suc- 
ceeded at last because, after repeated failures, he had been 
able to call in the people to redress the balance in the House 
of Commons. The Manchester Examiner attributed the 
result to the determined expression of the people’s own 
demand: “The nation decreed its own political organiza- 
tion. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright were the organs of 
its will.’® 

*Morley, Gladstone, II. 222. 
ees by Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales, 


p. 2 
3 Editorial of December 31, 1867. 


CHAPTERGX 


CONCLUSION 


Thus were the majority of English urban workers 
“brought within the pale of the Constitution.”” The Act of 
1867 was the culmination of a development that had been 
continuous since the agitation for the first reform bill. It 
was the inevitable result of policies forced upon all classes 
in the state by the facts of the social and industrial world. 

As the Act was a point of culmination, so was it a point 
of departure. It was to prove the initial force in another 
cycle of political evolution. The full effects of the enfran- 
chisement of workingmen were slow to manifest them- 
selves, but from the first a profound modification of the 
political system and its legislative fruits is evident to those 
who can look back from the vantage point of a later period. 
The policy of most of the upper and middle classes since 
the opening of the century had been to prevent workingmen 
from achieving a position where they could exert direct 
political influence through the suffrage. Their policy after 
1867 was to minimize the effects of the success of working- 
men in having won such a position. The method adopted 
was to strive to attach the labor vote to one or the other of 
the old parties. The era of Liberal-Laborism and of Tory- 
democracy was at hand. 

The first of these alliances is the more important in Eng- 
lish labor history. Tory-democracy possessed no possibili- 
ties of development from the point of view of labor. It 
meant simply the securing of labor support for Conserva- 
tism by means of organization, patronage, and occasional 
social legislation. It was not based upon any idea of equal 


290 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


partnership. Liberal-Laborism, on the contrary, in theory 


7 


; 


at least, recognized labor as an integral section of the party, 


free to exert as much influence therein as it might show 
strength enough for. If labor exerted a minimum of influ- 
ence, it was due partly to the fact that it lacked any well- 


defined program, either as to policy or electoral activity, and ~ 


partly to its political inexperience. Liberal-Laborism of- 
fered to workingmen a needed training school in politics. 
Because it was not a static régime like Tory-democracy, but 
recognized the life principle of freedom of action, it per- 
mitted to labor a gradual political growth. When labor had 
outgrown the framework of the Liberal alliance and when 
changed economic conditions made it no longer serviceable, 
labor was sufficiently experienced and disciplined in political 
methods to become an independent party. 

Not only did Liberal-Laborism serve as a means for the 
political development of the working classes. It has to its 
credit great acts of legislation, which it would have been 
impossible to secure if Liberalism had not rested upon a 
broad national support. Not only that, but much of the leg- 
islation it fostered after 1867 took its character from labor. 
Especially was the new political status of workingmen largely 


responsible for divorcing the party from the individualistic — 


principles it had inherited from the Manchester School. 
That this divorce was not effected sooner was due in part to 
the fact that labor itself during two decades after its enfran- 
chisement inclined toward individualism. 

The foundations of the Liberal-Labor alliance were laid 








in the period treated in this study. The Radical wing of the | 
Liberal party had striven persistently to bring a portion at | 


least of the working classes within the body of the electorate, 
well knowing that only by such support could Whig and 
Tory domination of the national policies be broken. Work- 


! CONCLUSION 291 


_ing-class leaders were convinced, in their turn, of the need 
of such an alliance in order to secure the suffrage for their 
‘class. The coalition between the two groups contained ele- 
_ments that were at the same time compatible and incom- 
patible. The latter consisted in the opposition of the views 
held as to industrial and social interests. The fluctuation in 
the influence of this fundamental consideration during the 
_ period between 1850 and 1867 is described in these pages. 

The Act of 1867 gave the Radical faction the ascendency 
_within the Liberal party,. and its allies in the agitation now 





became its allies in the party. The identical divergence of 
views and policy that had characterized the earlier attempts 
at cooperation was carried over into their new relationship. 

In the program of the party, as in those of Reform Union 
_and Reform League, a lack of harmony became apparent 


_whenever labor preferred special claims in the social and eco- 
‘nomic field. Only on the ground of political radicalism 





could there be thorough cooperation, unless these antago- 
nisms should be softened. A gradual assuagement of them 
_had been going on ever since 1850. That fact accounts in 
part for the degree of codperation that was evident in the 
agitation for reform. The Liberal party of Gladstone came 
to achieve a conspicuous amount of harmony, because on 
Doth sides this assuagement continued. Labor became less 
and less insistent upon its special claims; on the other hand, 
the party as a whole, through the almost unconscious pres- 
sure of labor, became partially reconciled to collectivist 





_ principles. 

Herein lies one reason for a careful study of the two 
decades before 1867. It serves to make clear the continuity 
of political developments. From the special point of view of 
the political history of the working classes, this study reveals 
the fact that the divisions between its various phases in the 


eee 





292 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


nineteenth century were not so sharp as is sometimes believed 
Its development was uneven, it is true, but its transition 
were made without any great degree of abruptness. Finally, 
this study makes it clear that both the direct and the indiredl 
influence exerted by the working classes upon English poli- 
tics in the third quarter of the century reached notable pro-_ 
portions in spite of the exclusion of the majority of those 
classes from the suffrage. . 

A word needs to be added concerning the future of the 
various organizations that had participated in the successful 
movement for reform. During the last months of the agita- 
tion both the Conservatives and the Liberals were bidding 
for the support of the prospective voters.‘ The Conserva- 
tives claimed gratitude for their reform bill and began at 
once to organize workingmen’s associations. During 1867 
the press reported several deputations of workingmen to 
Disraeli to convey the gratitude of their class.2 Even before 
the bill was passed, steps were taken by the Conservatives to 
organize the labor vote, and before the end of the year a 
National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Asso- 
ciations had been formed with many working-class constitu- 
ent bodies.? This work was entrusted to a firm of solicitors. 
There can be no doubt that the Liberals were much con- 
cerned over these activities.* 

Meanwhile, the Liberals neglected to pursue a similar 
policy, trusting too much, no doubt, to the native liberalism 


* An excellent analysis of the electoral results of the Act of 1867 and| 
of the way in which the labor vote was cast in the next three elections is 
to be found in Seymour, Electoral Reform in England and Wales, ch. x., 
pp. 280-316. 

® Manchester Examiner, February 4; April 23; May 1; Morning Star, 
April 8, 9, 20, 30; May 1, 6; June 10. 

* Morning Star, November 12, 13, 1867. Also a pamphlet, Principles| 
and Objects of the National Association of Conservative and Constitu- 
tional Associations, London, 1872; and another, The Metropolitan Con- 
servative Working Men’s Association, London, 1868. 

eres Examiner, June 29; Morning Star, March 1, October 16, 
1867. 























CONCLUSION 293 


of workingmen. They even began to antagonize the Reform 
League as soon as the agitation was over. The League 
exulted greatly in the reform victory which it believed to 
have been won by its efforts. The executive council was so 
filled with a consciousness of the strength and effectiveness 
of the League that it planned to continue as a permanent 
working-class political organization—a labor wing of the 
Liberal party. Through it, they hoped to organize the new 
electors. In April, 1867, the Second Annual Report set 
forth the aim of perfecting the organization until no mem- 
ber of parliament could be elected without its support. It 
advised its branches to form themselves into electoral com- 
mittees, one aim of which should be to send workingmen, or 
others who truly represented the interests of the wage-earn- 
ers, to parliament.’ 

Soon, however, the League found itself in financial 
straits. The Radicals now paid it only scant respect; their 
press belittled it. Its efforts to have amendments in the 
registration system made in the interests of the new voters 
were ignored by them.” Its enemies were furnished an ex- 
cellent weapon against it in the fact that it undoubtedly 
temporized with Fenianism.* Finally, it became torn with 
internal dissensions.* 

In 1868, however, came the first election under the new 
law. Leaders of the Liberal party bethought themselves of 
the possibility of using the nation-wide organization of the 


*MS of the Second Annual Report. Also resolutions adopted at a 
Council meeting in March, copied in the League Letter-Book. Also 
Morning Star, May 28, and Manchester Examiner, June 1, 1867. 

* Birmingham Post, February 10, 1868, quoting London Review to the 
effect that Bright had removed from the League the light of his counte- 
nance. Howell’s letters show the chagrin the League felt in the matter of 
the registration amendments. 

*The League minutes record stormy sessions on the subject. They 
were reported in the press, often in detail. 

*League Letter-Book, July 26 and September 27, 1867; also the 
League minutes. 


294 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


League to marshall the new voters. They gave it their favor 
once again, therefore, contributed nineteen hundred pounds | 
to it for electoral purposes, and found it an effective aid in | 
carrying a number of seats. The League, in turn, sought to | 
secure from the Liberal organization support for a list of 
League candidates, definitely put forward as candidates of 
the working classes, and also recognition of the new voters | 
by the party in making party nominations. If they expected 
fraternal treatment from the party, they were disillusioned. | 
A detailed study of this election makes it clear that the new | 
voters, through the League, took a larger part than is usually 
supposed, though in the main an unsuccessful part. The 
trades codperated with the League in several constituencies.* 

The Reform League, broken and dispirited after the elec- 
tion, dissolved early in 1869. Its attempt to become an ~ 
organized labor wing of the Liberal party had failed. The 
effort to carry on some form of labor electoral organization 
was left to its rival, the London Working Men’s Association, 
which organized the Labor Representation League in 1869. 
It played some part in the next two elections. 

As for the middle class counterpart of the League—the 
National Reform Union— it disbanded in 1869, was revived 
in 1876, and took part in the movement for a reform of the 
county franchise.” 


* These statements are based upon a careful survey of the Radical 
press during the election, the minutes of the League and its Letter- Book, 
and upon a series of MS confidential reports on the campaign made to 
the League Council by its agents (in Bishopsgate Institute). 

*It would appear that it was not the League that was revived in 1876, 
as stated in Park, Reform Bill of 1867, p. 266, but the Union. See 
Reform Gazette and Manchester Critic, October 11, 1878, as to the latter. 




















BIBLIOGRAPHY 


UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL 


In the Library of Bishopsgate Institute (the Howell Collec- 
tion) : 
Minute Books of the General and Executive Councils of the 
Reform League, 1865-1869. 
Cash Book of the Reform League, 1865-1869. 
Letter Books of the Secretary of the Reform League, 1865- 
1867. 
Letters and Articles by George Howell, 1867-1875. 
Reform League Election Reports, 1868. 
Minutes of the General Council of the International Work- 
ing Men’s Association, 1865-1869. 
In the British Library of Political Science: 
Minutes of the Conference of Amalgamated Trades, 1867- 
1871. 


OFFiIcIAL DocuMENTS 


Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, Third Series (cited as Han- 
sard). 

Report of the Select Committee on Bleaching and Dyeing 
Works. Wouse of Commons, 1867. 

Report of the Select Committee on Masters and Operatives. 
House of Commons, 1860. 

Reports of the Select Committee on Master and Servant. 
House of Commons, 1865-6. 

Report of the Commissioners appointed to Inquire into the 
Organization and Rules of the Trades Unions and Other 
Associations. First Report, House of Commons, 1867. 

Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords on the 
Elective Franchise in Counties and Boroughs. House of 
Lords Reports and Bills, 87, Parliament of 1860. 


SECONDARY WorRKS 


NoteE—Only a few general works or even special studies 
that are listed here proved to be of extended usefulness. Cer- 
tain biographies and works dealing with special aspects of social 


developments, such as trade-unionism or socialism, were most 
valuable. From others, however, suggestions or discussions of 
special incidents could be drawn that aided in interpretation or 
added something to the sum of available information. 


Apams, E. D., Great Britain and the American Civil War. 2 
vols. New York, 1925. 

BAERNREITHER, J. M., English Associations of Working Men. 
Tr. A. Taylor. London, 1893. , 

Barker, E., Political Thought in England from Herbert 
Spencer to the Present Day. New York, 1915. 

Beer, M., History of British Socialism. 2 vols. London, 1919, 
1920. 

Bonner, H. B., Life of Charles Bradlaugh. 2 vols. London, — 
1895. 

Bowtey, A. L., Wages in the United Kingdom in the Nine- 
teenth Century. London, 1900. . 

BricHT, JOHN, Speeches on Questions of Public Policy. Ed. — 
J. E. T. Rogers. London, 1868. 

—_—__——, Public Letters. Ed. H. J. Leech. )Goendeaeieea: 

BroapHurst, Henry, The Story of His Life from a Stone- 
mason’s Bench to the Treasury Bench. Told by himself. — 
London, 1901. 

CHAPMAN, S. J., The Lancashire Cotton Industry. Manches- 
ter, 1904. 

CoppeNn, R., Speeches on Questions of Public Policy. Ed. — 
Bright and Rogers. London, 1870. 

~ Cottett, C. D., History of the Taxes on Knowledge. 2 vols. 
London, 1899, 

Cooper, T., Life of, written by himself. London, 1882. 

Cox, H., The Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867. London, 1867. 

Davipson, J. M., Eminent Radicals in Parliament. London, 
1879. 

Dewsnup. E. R.. The Housing Problem. Manchester, 1907. 

Dicey, E. V., Lectures on Law and Public Opinion. London, 
1914. 

Dickinson, G. L., Development of Parliament in the Nine- 
teenth Century. London, 1895. 

DiERLAMM, G., Die Flugschriftenliteratur der Chartistenbewe- 
gung und ihr Widerhall in der offentlichen Meinung. Leip- 
sig, 1909. 


296 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND | 
i 
é 
y 
‘ 
| 
¢ 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 297 


DotiEans, E., Le Chartisme. 2 vols. Paris, 1912. 

Duncan, W., Life of Joseph Cowen. London, 1904. 

Duncomse, T. H., Life and Correspondence of Thomas 
Slingsby Duncombe. 2 vols. London, 1868. 

Essays on Reform. London, 1867. 

Fauckner, H. U., Chartism and the Churches. New York, 
1916. 

Frost, T., Forty Years’ Recollections, Literary and Political. 
London, 1880. 

Gammaceg, R. G., History of the Chartist Movement. Edit. of 
1894, Newcastle-on-Tyne. 

Garnett, R., Life of W. J. Fox, Public Teacher and Social 
Reformer, 1786-1564, London, 1910. 

GisBins, H.-pE B., English Social Reformers. London, 1892. 

GIFFEN, SiR Ropert, Progress of the Working Classes in the 
Last Half of the Nineteenth Century. London, 1884. 

GREVILLE, G. C. F., Memoirs. 8 vols. London, 1896-9. 

Gurtier, G., Die englische Arbeiterpartei; ein Beitrag zur 
Geschichte und Theorie der politische Arbeiterbewegung in 
England. Jena, 1914. 

Harrison, F., Autobiographic Memoirs. 2 vols. London, 
1911. 


——., National and Social Problems. New York, 1908. 


Hinton, R. J., English Radical Leaders. New York, 1875. 
Hosnouse, S., Joseph Sturge. London, 1919. 
Hosson, J. A., Richard Cobden, the International Man. New 
York, 1919. 
Hopper, E., Life of Samuel Morley. New York, 1888. 
————.,, Life and Work of the Seventh Earl of Shaftesbury. 
3 vols. London, 1888. 
HotyoakeE, G. J., Bygones Worth Remembering. 2 vols. Lon- 
don, 1905. 
, Sixty Years of an Agitator’s Life. 2 vols. London, 
1906. 
Howe t, G., Conflicts of Labour and Capital Historically and 
Economically Considered. London, 1878. 
, Labour Legislation, Labour Movements and Labour 
Leaders. London, 1902. 
Hovety, M., The Chartist Movement. Edited and Completed 
by T. F. Tout. Manchester, 1918. 


298 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Humpurey, A. W., History of Labour Representation. Lon- 

don, 1912. . 
, Robert Applegarth. London, 1913. 

Hutcuins, B. L., and Harrison, A., History of Factory Leg- 
islation. 2nd Edit. London, 1911. 

Jepuson, H., The Platform, its Rise and Progress. 2 vols. 
London, 1892. 

Leary, F., Life of Ernest Jones. London, 1887. | 

Levi, L., (Ed.), Annals of British Legislation. 14 vols. Lon- 
don, 1856- 65. 

Lovett, W., Life and Struggles of, in his Pursuit of Bread, 
Knowledge and Freedom. London, 1876. 

Luptow, J. M., and Jones, L., Progress of the Working 
Classes, 1832-1867. London, 1867. 

McCasgE, J., Life and Letters of George Jacob Holyoake. 2 
vols. London, 1908. 

Mackay, T., History of the English Poor Law from 1834 to 
the Present Time, Vol. III (supplementary to Sir George 
Nicholls, A History of the English Poor Law). London, 
1898-9. : 

Maurice, F., Life of Frederick Denison Maurice. 2 vols. 
New York, 1884. 

MenceEr, A., The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour. 
Introduction by H. S. Foxwell. London, 1899. 

Mitt, J. S., Autobiography. London, 1873. 

Mitt, J. S., Socialism. Ed. W. D. P. Bliss. New York, 1891. 

Mo.eswortH, W.N., History of England from 1830 to 1874. 
3 vols. London, 1886. 

Monypenny, W. F., and Buckte, G. E., Life of Benjamin 
Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield. 6 vols. London, 1910-1920. 

Mortey, J., Life of Richard Cobden. Boston, 1881. 

Paris, CoMTE DE, Trade Unions of England. London, 1869. 

Park, J. H., The English Reform Bill of 1867. New York 
1920. 

Porter, G. R., Progress of the Nation from the Beginning of 
the Nineteenth Century, in its social and economic aspects. 
Revised by F. W. Hirst. London, 1912. 

PostcaTe, R. W., The Workers’ International. London, 1921. 

Raven, C. E., Christian Socialism. London, 1920. 

Ricuarps, C., A History of Trades Councils from 1860 to 
1875. Introduction by G. D. H. Cole. London, 1920. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY tos 5) 


Rozinson, M., The Spirit of Association; Gilds, Friendly So- 
cieties, Cooperative Movements and Trade Unions of Great 
Britain. London, 1913. 

Rose, J. H., The Rise of Democracy. London, 1912. 

Rosensiatt, F. F., The Social and Economic Aspects of the 
Chartist Movement. New York, 1916. 

SCHULZE-GAEVERNITZ, G. von, Social Peace: A Study of the 
Trades Union Movement in England. Tr. Wicksteed and 
Ed. Wallas. London, 1893. 

Seymour, C., Electoral Reform in England and Wales; the 
Development and Operation of the Parliamentary Franchise 
1832-1885. New Haven, 1915. 

SLATER, G., The Making of Modern England. Boston, 1915. 

Stosson, P. W., The Decline of the Chartist Movement. New 
York, 1916. 

SmitH, G. B., Life and Speeches of John Bright. New York, 
1881. 

Sotty, H., These Eighty Years, or the Story of an Unfinished 
Life. 2 vols. London, 1893. 

STaNmore, Lorp A. H. G., Sidney Herbert, Lord Herbert of 
Lea, a Memoir. 2 vols. London, 1906. 

Stusss, C. W., Charles Kingsley and the Christian Socialist 
Movement. New York, 1899. 

TestutT, O., L’Internationale. Paris, 1871. 

TREVELYAN, G. M., Life of John Bright. London, 1913. 

, British History in the Nineteenth Century. London, 
1922. 

Wa tas, G., Life of Francis Place. London, 1898. 

WaALPoLe, Sir S., History of Twenty-Five Years, 1856-1880. 
London, 1904-5. 

Wess, S. and B., History of Trade-Unionism. Edits. of 1894 
and 1920, London. 

West, J., History of the Chartist Movement. London, 1920. 

Woops, R. A., English Social Movements. 3rd Edition. New 
Work, 1921. 

Woop, G. H., Some Statistics of Working Class Progress since 
1860. London, 1900. 


NEWSPAPERS 
Age. Founded 1852. 
Albion. Protectionist journal in the fifties. 
Atlas. 1850-1867. 


300 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Ballot. Founded 1859. In 1860 became the Elector. 

Bell’s News: A London Weekly Newspaper advocating the 
Progress of the People. File in British Museum begins with 
1856. 

Birmingham Daily Post. 

Borough of Greenwich Free Press, and Kent and Surrey Com- 
mercial Advertiser. Founded 1855. 3 

Britannia: A Weekly Journal of News, Politics and Literature. 
Founded 1841. 

British Banner. Founded 1848. Dissenting. 

British Standard. Dissenting. 

Builders’ Salesman and Mechanics’ Advertiser. 

Christian Cabinet. Founded 1865. Dissenting. 

Christian Times. Founded 1848. Became Beacon and Chris- 
tian Times in 1858. Dissenting. 

Christian World. Founded 1858. Dissenting. 

Christian Weekly News. Dissenting. 

Clerkenwell News. File in British Museum begins with 1857. 

Elector. 

English Leader. 1864-6. Democratic. 

East London Observer and Weekly Local Journal. 1857. 

Freeholders’ Circular, 1852-1884. Organ of the National Free- 
hold Land Society. 

Gazette of the Association for Promoting the Repeal of the 
Taxes on Knowledge. 1857-61. Issued gratis. 

Labour League, or Journal of the National Association of 
United Trades. Isle of Man, 1848-9. 

Leeds Mercury. 

Manchester Examiner and Times. Organ of the Manchester 
Radicals. 

Morning Star. 1855-1869. Radical. 

National Reformer. 1860-1893. Edited by Charles Bradlaugh 
and others. Democratic. 

Newcastle Daily Chronicle. Founded 1858. Purchased in 1859 
by Joseph Cowen; then became radical. 

Newcastle Weekly Chronicle. Long-established Whig paper 
until it became the property of Cowen in 1859. 

Northern Star. Chartist organ. 

Political Examiner, a Weekly Democratic Journal. 1853. 

Red Republican. 1850. Ed. G. J. Harney. 


t 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 301 


_ Reform Gazette and Manchester Critic. 1878-9. 

Reynolds's Newspaper. 1850 to date. Ultra-radical. 

St. Pancras Chronicle. 1857. 

Shoreditch Herald and East London Rambler. 1852. 

South London Local Journal. 1855. 

South London News. Founded 1853. 

Times. 

Tower Hamlets Mail. 1857. 

Vanguard: A Weekly Journal of Politics, History, Biography 
and General Literature. 1853. Ed. G. J. Harney. 

Watchman and Wesleyan Advertiser. Founded 1848. 

Weekly Advertiser and Parochial Reformer. 1853. 

Weekly Christian News. Founded 1854. Dissenting. 

West Middlesex Advertiser and Family Journal. 1857. 

Whitehaven Herald. 


PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS 


Advocate of National Instruction: for promoting the establish- 
ment of a general system of secular struction, supported 
by local rates and under local management. 1853-4. 

American Historical Review. 

Barker's Review of Politics, etc. 1861-3. 

Bentley's Quarterly Review. 

Bookbinders’ Trade Circular. 1850-77. 

Champion of What is True and Right and for the Good of All. 
1849-50. Ed. Rev. J. R. Stephens. 

Christian Socialist: A Journal of Association. 1850-1. 

Constitutional Press, a review of politics, etc. 1859-60. 

Contemporary Review. 

Coéperator. A record of cooperative progress conducted ex- 
clusively by working men. 1860-71. 

Cooper's Journal, or Unfettered Thinker and Plain Speaker, 
for Truth, Freedom, and Progress. 1850. 

Democratic and Social Almanac for 1850. London, 1849. 

Democratic Review of British and Foreign Politics, History, 
and Literature. 1849-50. Ed. G. J. Harney. 

Edinburgh Review. 

English Republic. 1851-5. Ed. W. J. Linton. 

English Leader. 1866-7. 

Fortnightly Review. 


302 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Fraser’s Magazine. : 

Freethinkers Magazine, and Review of Theology, Politics, and 
Literature. 1850-1. 

Herald of Peace: A monthly journal published under the 
auspices of the Peace Society. 

Illustrated Builders’ Journal. 1865-6. 

Industrial Partnerships Record. 1867-8. 

Investigator. 

Journal of Association. 1852. 

Journal of Progress. 1854. 

Journal of the Typographic Arts. 1860-2. 

Lankishire Loominary un Wickly Lookin Glass. 1864-5. 

Leicestershire Movement: or Voices from the Frame and the 
Factory, the Field and the Rail. Leicester, 1850. 

Liberator. A monthly journal of the Society for the Liberation 
of Religion from State Patronage and Control. 1855. 

London Review and Weekly Journal of Politics, Literature, 
Art and Society. 

Midland Progressionist; a periodical for the people, devoted to 
popular enfranchisement and progress. 1848. 

Monday Review. 1862. 

National Union: A Political and Social Record and Organ of 
the “National Political Union for the Obtainment of the 
People’s Charter.” May to December, 1858. 

Nineteenth Century. 

Northern Tribune. A Periodical for the People. 1854-5. 

Notes to the People. By Ernest Jones. 1851-2. 

Operative. 1851-2. 

Operative Bricklayers’ Society's Trade Circular and General 
Reporter. 1861-2. 

Parochial Reformer and Tower Hamlets Chronicle. 1850. 

Peace Advocate and Correspondent. 1851. 

People, The: Their Rights and Liberties, their Duties and their 
Interests. 1848-9. 

People’s Review of Literature and Politics. 1850. 

Political Annual and Reformers’ Handbook. 1854-6. 

Political Science Quarterly. 

Politics for the People. 1848. 

Printers Journal and Typographical Magazine. 

Provident Times. 1854. 


———— se 


r 
r 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 303 


Quarterly Review. 

Reformers Almanac and Political Year Book. 1849-50. 

Republican. 1848. 

Saturday Review. 

Staff of Life, a Bakers’ Journal. 1866-7. 

Truth Promoter. 1850. 

Universal Review in Politics, Literature and Social Science. 
1859-60. 

Voice of the People and Rights of Industry. 1848. 

Yorkshire Tribune; a monthly journal of Democracy and Secu- 
larism for the Beatle. 1855-6. 

Westminster Review. 

Woollen, Worsted and Cotton Journal; or Monthly Magazine 
of Industry. 1853-4. 

Working Man. 1866-7. 

Working Men’s College Magazine. 1860. 


PAMPHLETS 

Apams, W. P., An argument for complete suffrage. London, 
Manchester, Hulme, and Newcastle, 1860. 

Address of the Metropolitan Trades’ Delegates to their Fellow 
Countrymen, etc. London, 1850. 

Address and Srovisional Rules of the Working Men’s Inter- 
national Association. London, 1864. 

Address of the Executive Council of the Amalgamated Engi- 
neers to the Fellow Workmen, etc. London, 1855. 

Address of the National Reform Conference to the Friends of 
Parliamentary and Financial Reform. London, 1850. 

Association for Promoting Equalization of the Poor Rates and 
Uniformity of Assessment Throughout the Metropolitan 
Districts. London, 1857. 

Baxter, R. D., The New Reform Bill. London, 1866. 

, Distribution of Seats and the Counties. London, 
1866. 
, The National Income. London, 1868. 

Bright's Speeches at Birmingham, etc. London, 1859. 

CaLLENDER, W. R., The Commercial Crisis of 1857 ; its Causes 
and Results. London, 1858. 

Cuapwick, D., On the Rate of Wages in Two Hundred Trades 
and Branches of Labour in Manchester and Salford and the 
Manufacturing Districts of Lancashire. . . . 1839 to 
1859, with statistical tables, etc. 2nd Edit. London, 1860. 


304 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Cote, H. W., The Middle Classes and the Borough Franchise, 


London, 1866. 

Contrast, The; or John Bright's Support of the Present Gov- 
ernment Justified. By a Liberal M.P. London, 1859. 

Council of the Manchester Chartist Association to the Demo- 
cratic Reformers of Great Britain. 1851. 

Council of the Northern Reform Union to the Radical Re- 
formers of the United Kingdom, October 11, 1859. New- 
castle-on-Tyne. 

Cox, E. W., A Proposal for a Constitutional Reform Bill: a 
Letter to the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Derby. 3d. Edit. Lon- 
don, 1867. 


Danger of a Democratic Reaction and Suggestions for Placing 


the Franchise in a Sound and Defendible State While Still 
Possible. Liverpool, 1864. 

Drummonp, H., A letter to Mr. Bright on his Plan for Turn- 
ing the English Monarchy into a Democracy. London, 1858. 

Duwnnino, T., Trade Unions and Strikes: their Philosophy and 
Intention. London, 1860. 

Emancipation Society (no date). 

Ernest Jones. Who is he? What has he Done? Manchester, 
1867. 

Extension of the Franchise: a Letter Addressed to the Rt. Hon. 
Earl Russell, by a Non-elector. London, 1866. 

A Few Facts and Fallacies about Parliamentary Reform. Lon- 
don, 1859. 

FIELDEN, S., The Turn-out by the Master Mechanics. A Let- 
ter Addressed to the Editor of the Times. Bolton, 1852. 

Final Reform Bill of Earl Russell, K.G. London, 1866. 

First Report of the Society for the Promotion of Working 
Men’s Associations. London, 1852. 

The Franchise Considered, in a Letter to the Rt. Hon. W. Ei 
Gladstone, M.P. London, 1866. 

Frearson, J., The Relative Rights and Interests of the Em- 
ployer and the Employed Discussed; and a System Pro- 
posed by which the Conflicting Interests of all Classes of 
Society May be Reconciled. By Justitia. London, 1855. 

Gisss, E. J., Parliamentary Reform. London, 1867. 

The Government and the People! The great Reform League 
Demonstration in Hyde Park. London, 1867. 





BIBLIOGRAPHY 305 


Great Reform Demonstration at Glasgow, 16 October, 1866. 
Glasgow, 1866. 

GREENING, E. O., Complete a erry er ore of the Manhood 
of England. Sheech Delivered at the Inaugural Soiree of 
the Newark Reform Association. Newark, 1867. 

Hi, F., Parliamentary Reform. How the Representation 
may be Amended. London, 1865. 

Hote, J., Lecture on Social Science and the Organization of 
Labour. London, 1857. 

Hotyoake, G. J., The Liberal Situation: the Necessity for a 
Qualified Franchise. London, 1865. 

, G. J. Holyoake to W. jah Brown. (No date). 
, Deliberate Liberalism. 
, The Workman and the Suffrage. London, 1858. 
, Working Class Representation; its Conditions and 
Consequences. London, 1868. 

Jones, Ernest, Evenings with the People. No.1. The Work- 
man and his Work. An address delivered . . . at St. 
Martin's Hall, London, October 7, 1856. London, 1856. 

, Evenings with the People. No. 7. The Unem- 
Dioved: An address at the great Smithfield meeting : 
Feb. 17, 1857. To which is added a Reply to the “Times,” 
etc. London, 1857. 

Labour and Capital. By a Member of the Manchester Chamber 
of Commerce. London, 1867. 

Labour and Wages. Six prize essays. . . . By Six Work- 
ing Men. Leicester, 1849. 

The Land of England Belongs to the People of England. Lon- 
don, 1850 (?). 

Letter to Mr. George Jacob Holyoake, Containing a Brief Re- 
view of that Gentleman’s Conduct and Policy as a Re- 
former. London, 1854. By C. Murray. 

Letter to the Right Honourable the Earl of Derby on Political 
Reform. By One of the People. London, 1867. 

Life and Death of Ernest Jones, the Chartist Reformer. A 
Memoir. Manchester, 1869. 

M’Laren, D., Information respecting the Cities and Boroughs 
of the United Kingdom. London, 1859. 

Macsigz, R. D., Speech delivered at the meeting of the Liver- 
pool Reform League on December 19, 1866, on Plurality of 
Votes as a Needful Element in any Final Scheme of Parlia- 
mentary Reform. London, 1867. 


306 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Manchester Tract on Politics and Trade, a Test for a Shuttle- 
cock Cabinet. Manchester, 1858. 

Meeting of the Journeymen Bakers of the Metropolis. London, 
1850. 

Mitt, E., The Franchise ; Considered as a Means of a Peoples’ 
Training. London, 1851. | 

Mr. Bright: his Thoughts and my Thoughts. By a member of . 
the Carlton. London, 1859. 

Mr. John Bright and Labour Representation. (No date). . 

Mr. Hughes and the election of Lambeth. The Call of Duty to 
Workingmen. London, 1868. 

National Association of Coal, Lime, and Iron-stone Miners. — 
Transactions and Results of the National Association held 
at Leeds, November, 1863. London, 1864. : 

National Association of Factory Occupiers. Special Report of 
the Executive Committee. Manchester, 1855. 

National Freehold Land Society, as it Is, and as it Must Be. 
London, 1853. : 

National Parliamentary and Financial Reform Association. 
Address of the Executive Council. London, 1850 and 1851. 

National Parliamentary and Financial Reform Association. 
Tracts. London, 1851. 

National Reform League. Propositions for the Peaceful Re- 
generation of Society. London, 1850. 

National Reform League. Only Authorized and Official Pro- 
gram. National Reform League Demonstration, February | 
11, 1867. London, 1867. 

National Reform Union. Report of the Proceedings at the 
National Reform Conference, Manchester, 1865. (Contains 
also the first annual report of the Union). 

Newspaper Press Census for 1861. London, 1861. | 

NicuHo ts, J. A., The Strike. A Letter to the Working Classes 
on their Present Position and Movement. By a Lancashire 
Man. London, 1853. 

Our Constitution and the Elective Franchise. London, 1866. 

Pare, W., Claims of Capital and Labour: with a Sketch of © 
Practical Measures for their Conciliation. London, 1854. — 

Petitions for Manhood Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. 1859. : 

Porter, G., The Labour Question. An Address to the Capital-— 
ists and Employers in the Building Trades, being a Few 
Reasons in Behalf of the Reduction of the Hours of Labour, 
etc. London, 1861. 


———S 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 307 


Prospects of Reform. Letter to Sir Joshua Walmsley. Lon- 
don, 1849. 

Pryce, E. S., Electoral Action, with Suggestions for its Con- 
tinuance. A paper read at the Fourth Conference of the 
Society for the Liberation of Religion from State Patronage 
and Control, May 7, 1856. 

Questions for a Reformed Parliament. London, 1867. 

Reform Bill: An Attempt at an Equitable and Safe Mode of 
Representation in the Commons. . . . By One Who 
Loves Old England. Huddersfield, 1859. 

Reform. Fingerposts and Beacons. London, 1859. 

Reform in Parliament, or the Balance of Political Power. 

. . . By One Who Loves Old England. Huddersfield, 
1867. 

Reform League, Northern Department. Report of the First 
Annual Meeting—Manchester, November 9, 1867. Man- 
chester, 1867. ‘ 

Reform League. Official List of Branches. 1867. 

Reform Meetings. The Real Facts. Reports to J. Spofforth, 
Esq. London, 1866. 

Reform or not Reform? “That is the question,’ By an Inde- 
pendent Liberal. London, 1861. 

Reply to the Speech of the Rt. Hon. Robert Lowe, Delivered in 
the House of Commons, May 3, 1865. By a Member of the 
Committee of the Carlisle Non-electors Association. Carl- 
isle, 1866. 

Report of the Central Committee of the United Trades on the 
Proceedings Connected with the “Combination of Workmen 
Bill” in the Parliamentary Session, 1853. 

Report of the Committee appointed for the Receipt and Appor- 
tionment of the Master Spinners and Manufacturers’ De- 
fence Fund. Manchester, 1854. 

Representation of the Case of the Executive Committee of the 
Central Association of Employers of Operative Engineers. 
London, 1852. 

Ricxarps, F. P., Manchester and John Bright, London, 1859. 

Ritcuiz, J. E., Freehold Land Societies—History, Present 
Position, and Claims. London, 1853. 

Rough Sketch of a New Reform Bill. By a Devonshire Man. 
Exeter, 1866. 


308 LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


SarGENT, W. L., A Letter to John Bright, Esq., M.P. Birming- 
ham, 1861. 

Speech of Edmond Beales, Esq., M.A., President of the Reform 
League—May 13, 1865. 

Speech of C. N. Newdegate, M.P., at the Annual Meeting of § 
the Rugby and Dunchurch Agricultural Association, Novem- 
ber 26, 1858. London, 1859. 

SToKEs, W., Manchester Reform and Manchester Reformers, 
with Remarks on the Reform Associations Recently Com- 
menced in this City, and Suggestions Tending to the Crea-— 
tion of a Thoroughly Liberal and Independent Constituency. 
In a letter to Alderman Heywood. 2nd edition. Man- 
chester, 1859. 

STuRGEON, C., Esq., Letter to John Bright, M.P. on Dirt, and © 
on his Speech at Birmingham, 1867, with Notes on the First — 
List of Friends of the Working Classes, Published after the — 
Coup d’etat they Made on the Manchester Radicals. Lon- 
don, 1868. 

Suffrage for the Million: A Suggestion with a View to Recon- 
cile the Full Enfranchisement with a Fair Representation of — 
the People. London, 1860. 

Terrigenous. Land, Common Property. London, 1852. 

Transactions of the Codperative League. London, 1852. 

United Kingdom Alliance of Organized Trades. Rules for the 

“Government of, as Adopted at a Conference Held in Man- 
chester, January, 1867. Sheffield, 1867. 

VaRDEN, R., Hints on the Principles of Self Government and 

_ their Application to Parliamentary Reform. London, 1866. 

View of Parliamentary Reform, by a Reformer. Wallingford, 
1867. 

Who is the “Reformer,” John Stuart Mill or John Bright? 
London, 1859. 

Why the Liberals are Leaving the League. A letter Addressed 
to Sir Benj. Heywood, Bart., and Samuel Fletcher, Esq. 
By a Manchester Liberal. Manchester, 1857. 

Witson, E., Principles of Representation, in Order to Secure 
Due Balance of Classes. London, 1866. 

Working Man’s Dream of Reform. London, 1859. 


INDEX 


Aberdeen, Earl of, premier, 49, 
56, 104. 

Act of 1867, see Reform. 

Allan, William, 51, 162, 210 f., 
231. 

Amalgamated Society of Car- 
penters and Joiners, 210, 224, 
276. 

Amalgamated Society of Engi- 
neers, 35, 37, 43, 46, 100 ff., 
204; and strike of 1851, 52 ff., 
97, 100, 138. 

American Civil War, signifi- 
cance in England, 213, 217, 
227, 241, 253. 

Applegarth, Robert, 210 ff., 220, 
224, 231, 253. 

Anti-State-Church Association, 
129. 

Ashley, Lord, see Cooper, An- 
thony Ashley. 

Ashworth, Henry, 193, 197. 

Association for the Repeal of the 
Taxes on Knowledge, 69. 

Aveling, Thomas, 162. 

Ayrton, A. S., 127, 135. 


Baines, Edward, 14, 193, 238 f., 
272, 286. 

Bakers, London, protection of, 
41 note 1, 64. 

Bakers’ Gazette and General 
Trades Advocate, 64. 

Ballot, 96, 124, 126 f., 153, 159, 
161, 166, 250. 

Ballot, the, 165. 

Baxter, R. D., 192. 

Bazley, Thomas, 183. 

Beacon, the, 57, 107. 

Beales, Edmond, 215, 218, 220, 
227 note 1; and the Reform 
League, 251 f., 254, 257, 264, 
267 £., 272 £., 277, 282, 286. 


Beer Hive, the, 209 £, 217. 


Beer, M., quoted, 26, 33. 

Beer’s History of British So- 
cialism, 8. 

Beesly, Professor E. S., 140, 215, 
218, 220, 223, 234, 261, 277. 

Bentham, Jeremy, 78. 

Berkeley, F. H. F., 31. 

Birmingham, Liberalism of, 146 
f.; Post, 234; Trades Council, 
225: 

Black, Adam, 139, 190. 

Blanc, Louis, 55, 65. 

Boiler Smiths’ Union, 229. 

Bookbinders’ Society, 51; breach 
with Trades Council, 221. 

Bookbinders’ Trade Circular, 45, 
50 f., 98. 

Boot and Shoe Makers Reform 
Association, 204. 

Bootmakers City Reform Asso- 
ciation, 204. 

Bouverie, E. P., 194. 

Boycott, William, 120. 

Bowley, A. L., quoted, 199. 

Bradlaugh, Charles, 162, 180, 
208; and Secularist Move- 
ment, 93; in Reform League, 
255520 lheZO7iate 

Bright, Jacob, 215, 254. 

Bright, John, 6, 14, 25; and 
American Civil War, 214 ff.; 
and Liberal Party, 96, 99, 104, 
177, (SI 186" £9260) rand 
parliamentary reform, 30, 56 
fF 180) fe 835) Sos Oe the O5, 
146, 148 ff., 163, 168,—bill of 
1859, 174, 177 £., 181, 186, 217, 
—agitation of 1865-1867, 234, 
2368 2385) 2550 253;, 257.0200; 
263, 266, 274, 286; and peace 
movement, 75, 106, 115, 217; 
and Reform League, 251 f., 
257, 260, 266, 270, 272 £.; and 
social legislation, 59 ff., 64, 


310 


217; and working classes, 29 
ff., 80, 92, 94, 96, 104, 147, 
163, 164, 177, 189, 193, 207 £., 
215 f.,—alliance with, 1865- 
1867, 236, 238, 251; biography 
of, 8; defeated, 1857, 115. 

Broadhurst, Henry, 224, 231, 
258. 

Brougham, Henry, Lord, 22, 61, 
123: 

Builders’ nine-hour movement, 
136, £; 139th 162) 1762197, 
204. 

Builders’ strike, see Strikes. 

Building trades, and reform agi- 

. tation, 162; unemployment in, 
ISS se 

Bunting, C. J., 93, 239. 

Butler, C. S., 103. 

Buxton, Charles, 245. 


Cairnes, Professor J. E., 214. 

Cattell, C. C., 156. 

“Cave of Adullam,” 263. 

Cecil, Lord Robert, 174; 
trade unions, 189. 

Charter, the, 21 ff., 68, 90 f., 
102. 

Chartism; 9 fi. 12) 16ff2 168) 72; 
90, 148; and Christian Social- 
ism, 32 ff.; disintegration of, 
65 ff., 89 ff.; influence of, 4, 
9 ff., 150, 180, 193, 204 f., 255, 
265, 272, 279, 283; last phases 
of, (27; 65) fh, 105,912 204: 
205, 283. 

Chartists, 72, 81; and Complete 
Suffrage Movement, 23 ff.; 
and Christian Socialism, 32 
ff. + andiGornelawseon lees! 
and note 3, 22; and labor par- 
liament, 55; and middle class 
alliance, 87, 91, 93, 97, 100, 
160 ff., 166. 

Christian Socialism, principles 
of, 32 ff.; extent of, 34 f.; in- 
fluence of, 35 f., 53, 72, 87, 
140. 


on 


LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Classes, working, see Working 
classes; middle, see Middle 
classes, and Radicals. 

Clay, Sir William, 102 f., 127. 

Cobbett, J. M., 118, 184. 

Cobden, Richard, 24 f.; and 
Chartism, 67; and free press, 
68 f.; and Liberal Party, 99; 
and peace movement, 75, 106 
f.; and parliamentary reform, 
67, 80 £., 83, 92, 94, 96, 104, 
143, 156, 241, 246; and social 
legislation, 61, 64, 89; in elec- 
tion of 1857, 117; on Amer- 
ican Civil War, 215; on trade 
unions, 108. 

Codrington, General Sir W. J., 
125: 

Collett, C. D., 68 f. 

Combination of Workmen Act, 
49, 123, 144. 

Commons’ League, 30, 84, 86. 

Complete Suffrage Movement, 
22 ft., 85.923 

Conference of the United Build- 
ing Trades, 137. 

Connolly, T., 220, 258. 

Conservative Party, see Con- 
servatives. 

Conservatives, 49, 61 f., 76, 112, 
115 f., 118 ff.; and Gladstone, 
159; and land question, 82; 
and parliamentary reform, 95, 
99, 149, 155, 158, 167 ff., 172 
ff., 186, 195, 263 ff.; and party 
politics, 99, 113, 159, 168 ff., 
186 f., 195, 237, 262 £., 287 f., 
292; and Radicals, 172 and 
note 1, 173; in power, 98 f., 
104, 168. 

Cooper, Anthony Ashley, Lord 
Shaftesbury, 59, 61, 74, 156, 
250, 285. 

Cooperative movement, 8, 10, 32 
ff., 42, 56, 66, 72, 101% 

Corn Laws, 6, 21. 

Cotton spinners, of Glasgow, 21; 
Preston lockout of, 54 ff., 107. 

Coulson, E., 205, 210, 220, 253. 


INDEX 


Coventry ribbon weavers, 224. 

Cowen, Joseph, Jr., 14, 162, 166, 
178, 182, 215, 279. 

Cowen, Joseph, Sr., 249, 260. 

Crawford, Sharman, 25, 31, 61. 

Cremer, W. R., 210, 212, 220 f., 
223, 227 note 1, 247; in Re- 
form League, 253 f., 261, 264. 

Crimean War, 106 f., 109 £., 
148, 220. 

Crossley, Sir Francis, 173. 

Currency, reform of, advocated, 
39, 71. 


Dawson, George, 44, 69, 162. 

Delaforce, A. E., 39. 

Democracy, 5, 27; economic im- 
plications of, 6; feared, 11, 61, 
170M teel7405., 188, 191 ‘and 
note 2, 193 f. See also, Suf- 
frage, manhood, and Reform, 
parliamentary. 

Democratic Review, the, 34. 

Derby, Lord, see Stanley, Ed- 
ward George. 

Dicey, Edward, 215. 

Disraeli, Benjamin, and democ- 
racy, 14, 173, 175; and land 
question, 83; and Manchester 
School, 103 ff.; and parlia- 
mentary reform, 82, 95, 98, 
159, 168, 170 ff., 186, 234, 264, 
277, 287, 292; and party poli- 
tics, 99, 113, 159, 168 ff., 177, 
186, 237, 249, 264, 277, 287 f., 
292; on Mines bill, 63; on Ten 
Hour Law, 60 f. 

Dissent, see Nonconformists. 

Dorchester laborers, 20 ff. 

coed, Henry, 49, 155, 175, 
WA 

Duncombe, Thomas Slingsby, 22 
49, 62. 

Dunning, T. J., censure for 
London Trades Council, 221; 
for parliamentary reform, 228, 
261; in London Working 
Men’s Association, 258, 261: 
on trade unions, 140; relations 
with George Potter, 231, 247. 


uy 


Eccarius, George, 253. 
Economic conditions, after 1850, 
18 and note 2; in 1857, 131 ff.; 
in the sixties, 197 ff. 
Economist, the, 50, 55, 58, 191. 
Education, conditions in, 199 ff.; 
reform of, demanded, 29, 39, 
TOONS: 
Edwards, Passmore, 69, 162, 204. 
Elcho, Lord, 175, 177, 228. 
Elections, of 1852, 99,—William 
Newton’s candidacy in, 100- 
103; of 1857, 113 ff., 166,—in 
metropolis, 123 ff.; of 1859, 
144, 166,—reform question in, 
181 ff.,—working class partici- 
pation in, 181 ff., et passim,— 
Italian question in, 181, 186; 
of 1865, reform question in, 
245, 249,—working class par- 
ticipation in, 247 ff.; of 1868, 
293 f. 
Emancipation Society, 214. 
Employers of Operative Engi- 
neers, Central Association of, 
52, 100. 
Enfranchisement, see Suffrage. 
Engels, Friedrich, quoted, 146. 
Engineers, strike of (1851), 52 
ff.; see also Amalgamated So- 
ciety of Engineers, and Strikes. 
English Republic, the, 57, 107. 
Evans, Sir De Lacy, 31. 


Facey, T. G., in politics, 210, 
ZA 220 te 

“Fancy franchises,” 172. 

Fawcett, Henry, 140, 257, 283. 

Fenianism, 265, 293. 

Fielden, John, 118; Samuel, 54 

Finlen, James, 239. 

Flint Glass Makers, 44. 

Flint Glass Makers’ Magazine 
the, 44. 

Foreign affairs, see Interna- 
tionalism, and s. v. names of 
countries. 

Forster, William E., 36, 140, 
251, 286; in election of 1857, 
118; of 1859, 183 f. 


312 


Fox, W. J., 25, 31, 61, 94, 174; 
in elections, 117 f., 184 f. 

Frame rent, parliament on, 63 ff. 

Fraternal Democrats, the, 107. 

Franchise, see Suffrage. 

Freehold movement, 83 f., 94, 
95 and note 1. 

Free Speech, menaced, 219, 251. 

Free Trade Club, on suffrage, 68. 

Free-traders, see Radicals, and 
Manchester School. 

Friendly Societies Act of 1855, 
512352. 

Frost, Thomas, 91, 99. 

Furnival, F. J., 36. 


Gardner, W., 103. 

Garibaldi, in England, 217, 241, 
250. 

General Neapolitan Society of 
Working Men, address to, 222. 

Gibson, Milner, 22, 49, 60, 69, 
O25: 

Gilpin, Charles, 162. 

Gladstone, Robertson, 84; Wil- 
liam Ewart, and Conservatives, 
159; and Garibaldi, 218; and 
Liberalism, 14, 159, 194, 237, 
242; and Manchester School, 
242; and parliamentary re- 
form, (1859), 159, 174,— 
(1864) 241 f.,—(1866-7), 259 
ff., 278, 286 f.; and social 
legislation, 61; and working 
classes, 76, 80, 160, 242, 243, 
278; and party politics, 237, 
243, 286 ff.; annuities bill of, 
243; budget of (1860), 235. 

Glasgow Trades Council, 134, 
207; Za7ak: 

Glassworkers, the, and Christian 
Socialism, 35. 

Goderich, Lord, 49. 

Government ownership, 70 f., 73. 

Graham, Sir James, 60. 

Greening, E. O., 254, 272. 

Greenwich Liberal Association, 
124; in election of 1857, 124 f. 

Grey, Sir George, 51, 59, 82, 246. 


LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Grey, Henry, Earl, 245. 
eereka: Lord Robert, 61, 64, 
245. 


Hardy, Gathorne, 185. 
Harney, George Julian, 34, 75, 
87, 91, 162. é 


Harrison, Frederick, 140 f., 257. — 


Hartwell, Robert, 217, 223, 253. — 

Herbert, Sidney, quoted, 129. ; 

Hetherington, Henry, 68. ) 

Heywood, Abel, 164 f., 214; in © 
election of 1859, 183,—of — 
1865, 248. 

Heyworth, Lawrence, 60, 64. 

Hibbert, T. H., 184. 

Holyoake, George Jacob, 22, 68, 
208; and Christian Socialism, 
34; and political reform, 34, 
158, 283; and secularist move- 
ment, 93; in election of 1857, 
126 ff.; on union of classes, 99 
£., 161 12247 

Hooson, E., 162. 

Hornby v. Close, 275. 

Horsman, E., 174. 

House of Lords, attacks on, 74, 
152; committee on elective 
franchise, 176 note 1, 185, 192. 

Household suffrage, see Suf- 
frage, household. 

Housing conditions, 202. 

Howell, George, 141, 204 f., 210 
ff., 216, 220, 222022992003 
and Reform League, 251 ff., 
257, '2/ ae 

Hughes, Thomas, 33, 140, 214, 
233, 257, 261, 283; elected to 
parliament, 247. 

Hume, Joseph, 20 f., 49, 81; 
advocate of parliamentary and 
financial reform, 30, 68, 81, 
87, 92, 94, 98 ff.; and “Little 
Charter,” 30; on Chartism, 
67; on social legislation 60 ff. 

Hungary, sympathy for, 76 note 

O7e 
Hunt, Thornton, 69. 
Hyde Park riots, 267. 


INDEX 


Industrial exhibition, of 1851, 
44, 97. 

Internationalism, 75, 76 and note 
1, 107, 144, 204, 213. 

International Working Men’s 
Association, 71, 209, 213; 
founding of, 220; program of, 
223 ff.; meaning of to English 
working men, 223 f.; influence 
of, 226 f., 254; and trade 
unions, 223 ff. 

Irish Reform League, see Re- 
form League. 

Iron Trade Circular, the, 230. 

Ironworkers, strike of, 230 ff. 

Italy, interest in, 76 note 1, 107, 
144 f., 160, 186, 209, 217 ff. 


Jerrold, Douglas, 31. 

Jones, Ernest, 67, 87, 122; and 
Reform League, 253 f., 260, 
270, 272, 277 ; and labor parlia- 
ment, 55; and Christian So- 
cialism, 34; influence of, 67, 
134, 161; on enfranchisement 
of working men, 160 ff., 180; 
on unemployment, 134, 160; 
on union of classes, 87, 90, 99, 
160, 161; president of Political 
Reform Union (1858), 161 
and note 3, 162 ff., 180; so- 
cialist teachings of, 73, 110, 
134, 160; v. Parliamentary Re- 
form Association, 87, 90, 99; 
Lloyd, 33 f., 36, 69. 

Journal of Typographic Arts, 
the, 205. 

Junta, the, 48, 203, 210 f., 233; 
quarrel with George Potter, 
230 £., 233 note 1; activities 
of, 232 f., 247. 


Kane, John, 231, 249; in Inter- 
national, 224; in London 
Working Men’s Association, 
259. 

Kidderminster, 120. 

King, Locke, 95, 157. 

Kingsley, Charles, 32, 208. 


313 


Labor, and Liberal party, 23, 45, 
79, 293; independent political 
action of, 11, 21, 42 £., 53, 97, 
LOOM 124 Stes 1505 82 et 
290; new policy of, 14, 16 ff.; 
parliament, 55, 206; represen- 
tation, 100 ff., 126 f., 158, 245, 
280, 293; unorthodox views of, 
11 £., 18; 37, 39, 44, 55 £., 64 £., 
7, SYA wih, Wa IA, I, G0). 
192 £., 205 £., 220 ff. See also, 

_ Working classes. 

Labour League, the, 38, 42, 80, 
89. 

Labour Representation League, 
294, 

Lancashire, Block Printers’ 
Union, 224; cotton famine in, 
215, 243; growing conserva- 
tism of, 146; Reformers’ 
Union, 155, 183, 238; strike 
hel AD) Iie 

Land, nationalization of, 39, 70, 
72 £.; question, 73 f., 82, 101, 
124, 126, 152, 157, 210, 283. 

Langley, J. Baxter, 162 f., 253. 

Layard, A. H., 184. 

League, Anti-Corn Law, 21, 24, 
29, 96, 103, 115 ff., 169, 183, 
238; Reform, see Reform 
League. 

Leatham, E. A., 184, 214. 
Leeds, election of 1857 in, 118; 
election of 1859 in, 183 f. 

Leeds Mercury, 116, 153, 178. 

Leeds Working Men’s Reform 
Association, formed, 238; re- 
form conferences of, 238, 239 
ff., 244. 

Legislation, factory, 16, 19, 58 
ff., 66, 108, see also Social 
legislation; labor, in elections, 
100 ff.,. 117, 118 note 2; 127, 
see also Trade unions, legal 
status of. 

Leicester, 120. 

Leicester, Joseph, 258. 

Leicestershire Movement, 
34. 


the, 


314 


Leno, J. Bs 223,253. 

Liberalism, 29; and Bright, 156, 
159, 181, 186, 221; and Glad- 
stone, 80, 159 f., 194, 237, 
291; and labor, 79, 111, 114, 
294; and Reform League, 
271; changing nature of, 116, 
194, 262, 290 f.; in Birming- 
ham, 146 ff. See also Liberals. 

Liberal-Labor alliance, 77, 80, 
126, 244 ff., 290 ff. 

Liberal Party, see Liberals. 

Liberals, 75; and Bright, see 
Bright, John; and Conserva- 
tive reform bill, 173 ff.; and 
Gladstone, 242, see also Liber- 
alism, and Manchester School, 
78, see also Radicals; and 
parliamentary reform, 95 f., 
177, 181, 186 ff., 195, 262, 271, 
278, 286, see also Reform, 
parliamentary, 112, 118 f., 
1242-170) MSI) 186, 195; 7237; 
262, 286, 292, 294; and Re- 
form League, 271, 292 ff., see 
also Reform League. 

Libraries, public, 200. 

Linton, W. J., 75, 97, 100, 162. 

“Little Charter,” 30. 

Liverpool Financial Reform As- 
sociation, 84, 157. 

Livesey, Alderman Joseph, 162, 
240. 

Lodgers, enfranchisement of, 86, 
185 f., 258, 278. 

London Times, the, 58, 153, 157. 

London Trades Council, see 
Trades councils. 

London Working Men’s Associ- 
ation, founded, 256, 258, and 
notes 2, 3; activities of, 258 f., 
261 £., 270, 274, 277 £., 294. 

Lovett, William, 21 ff., 25 f., 67 
1 OL 

Lowe, Robert, 116, 120, 185, 263. 

Lucraft, Benjamin, 162, 165, 
204, 223, 239, 272. 

Ludlow, J. M., 32 f., 140. 

Lushington, G. 214. 

Lytton, Edward Bulwer, 174. 


LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Macaulay, T. B., 26 note 2. 

Macheath, W. J., 132, 239. ; 

McDonald, Alexander, 231, 273. 

Manchester, Chartist Associ- 
ation, 89 ff.; election of 1859 
in, 183,—of 1865 in, 248; Ex- 
aminer and Times, 233, 288; 
Guardian, 52; Manhood Suf- 
frage Association, 165, 183, 
254; political character of, 
146; School, 23, 74,—and 
democracy, 27,—and Disraeli, 
103 ff..—and Liberal Party, 
78 ff., 104, 115 £., 159—and 
reform, 27, 104, 159,—and 
peace, 106, 110, 115,—and so- 
cial legislation, 59, 64, 108, 
117, 156,—see also Radicals; 
Working Men’s Parliamentary 
Reform Association, 254. 

Manhood suffrage, see Suffrage, 
manhood. 

Manhood Suffrage and Vote by 
Ballot Association, 212, 227, 
236. 

Manners, Lord John, 60, 64. 

Master and Servant Law, 
amendment passed, 228; con- 
ference on, 228; terms of, 228; 
as incentive to political action, 
47 f€., 98, 101,°203;)207, 227. 

Master Spinners and Manufac- 
turers Association, 54. 

Marx, Karl, 55, 73, 223, 225: 

Maurice, F. D. 32 £., 140. 

Metropolis, the, 123, 185 f. 

Metropolitan Parliamentary Re- 
form Association, 22. 

Metropolitan Trades Committee, 


Metropolitan Trades Delegates, 
38. ff., 55. 

Miall, Edward, 23 ff., 31, 92, 96, 
99, 107, 117. 

Middle classes, the, alliance with 
the working classes, 19, 21, 27 
ff., 31, 65, 68, 77 my eee 
86 ff., 147 £., 156) tam 19s; 
219, 236, 238, 243, 273, 282, 
290,—difficulty of, 41, 56 ff., 


_—— ———— —— — <<< rrr rh C—S 


DN EE —————eerl ee eee eT 


INDEX 


68, 71, 74 £., 80, 83, 90, 93, 94, 
97104 fe 108; 110) 112; 135, 
143, 148, 156, 158, 161, 163, 
178, 179, 188, 208, 231, 233, 
236, 237, 239, 243, 248, 250, 
25S) £257. 202, 204 ft, 291; 
and democracy, 5, 27. See 
also Radicals. 

Mill, John Stuart, 14, 22, 126, 
214, 268 f., 285 f.; elected to 
parliament, 247; on labor rep- 
resentation, 126, 246. 

Miners, see National Association 
of Miners. 

Mines legislation, 62 ff., 143. 

Montague, Lord Robert, 
204. 

Monypenny and Buckle: Life of 
Beaconsfield, quoted, 168, 171, 
et passim. 

Moore, Richard, 69. 

Morley, John, quoted, 214, 234. 

Morley, Samuel, 14, 129, 251 f. 

Mottershed, T. J., 247. 

Muntz, G. F., 61, 63. 

Murray, Charles, 100. 


National Association for the 
Promotion of Social Science, 
140. 

National Association of Mallea- 
ble Ironworkers, 224. 

National Association of Min- 
ers, formed, 143; on politics, 
143, 227, 229. 

National Association of Organ- 
ized Trades for the Protection 
of Labor, 41, 48, 89, 117, 125. 

National Charter and Social Re- 
form Union, 72. 

National Charter Association, 
66, 67 and note 2, 90. 

National Complete Suffrage 
Union, 25 f. See also Com- 
plete Suffrage Movement. 

National Freehold Land Society, 
84, 95 note 1. 

National Parliamentary and Fi- 
nancial Reform Association, 


189, 


315 


63, 77, 86, 148, 240; attitude 
of working men toward, 87 ff., 
93; activities of, 92 ff., disso- 
lution of, 104, 108, 110; his- 
tory of, Chapter iii. 

National Reform League for the 
Peaceful Regeneration of So- 
ciety, 69 ff. 

National Reform Union, 238; ac- 
tivities of, 253 ff., 261, 272, 
276, 281, 285, 294; founding 

_ of, 243 £., 250. 

National Sunday League, 
and note 3. 

National Union of Conservative 
and Constitutional Associ- 
ations, 292. 

National Union of the Working 
Classes, 19. 

Neate, Professor Charles, 206. 

Neele, E. V., 36. 

Newcastle, Chronicle, 178, 192, 
218, 242, 246; elections in, 119, 
182 f., 249. 

Newspaper Tax Abolition Com- 
mittee, 69. 

Newspapers, statistics on, 200 f. 

Newton, George, 240, 255, 273; 
William, 35, 37, 43, 49, 52; 
candidate for parliament, 43, 
53, 100, 102, 127; on -trade 
unions, 139, 228; other politi- 
cal activities, 51, 97, 162, 239. 

Nicholay, J. A., 162, 253. 

Nine-hour movement, see Build- 
ers. 

Noble, H. A., 205. 

Nonconformist, the, 23 and note 
Sole 

Nonconformists, and democracy, 
7, 23 and notes 1 and 2, 28, 79, 
117= in “polities, 23; 1290 1., 
238: and Gladstone, 242. 

Non-electors’ Association, of 
Newcastle, 182; of Tyne- 
mouth, 249. ' 

Northern Star, the, 93, 99. 

Notes to the People, 73. 


121 


316 


Oastler, Richard, 40. 

O’Brien, Bronterre, 22, 25, 69 ff. 

O’Connor, Feargus, 17, 193; and 
Chartists, 67; and middle class 
alliance, 30, 67, 81, 87, 94. 

Odger, George, 209 f., 212, 220 
f., 223 £., 227 note 1, 248; in 
Reform League, 253, 272, 283. 

O’Donoghue, The, 277. 

O’Leary, James, 39. 

Oldham, elections in, 117 f., 184 


tig 

Operative, the, 35, 43, 47 £., 53, 
100 ff., et passim. 

Operative Bricklayers, and poli- 
tics, 205 f.; Trade Circular, 
206. 

Osborne, R. Bernal, 31, 156. 

Owenism, 16, 34. 

Oxford Reform League, see Re- 
form League. 


Pakington, Sir John, 82. 

Pall Mall Gazette, 233. 

Palmerston, Lord, 49, 59, 77, 96, 
111, 128, 144, 157, 159, 165, 
186; and reform, 106, 128 f., 
235, 249, 271; and working 
men, 220; death of, 236, 250; 
in election of 1857, 113; last 
ministry of, 187, 195, 235. 

Panic, of 1857, 134; of 1866, 
265 f. 

Parliamentary reform, see Re- 
form, parliamentary. 

Parliamentary Reform Commit- 
tee, 147, 151, 161. 

Parochial reform 
136. 

Patent laws, reform of, 101. 

Peace movement, 44, 75, 105 ff., 
227 note 1. 

Peelites, 77, 99, 104, 113. 

People’s Charter Union, 68 ff. 

People’s League, 67 f. 

People’s Paper, the, 73, 161 ff. 

Pierce, Hugh, 132. 

Place, Francis, and Chartism, 
22, 68 f.; and Reform Associ- 
ation, 86. 


associations, 


LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


Poland, interest in, 76 note 1, 
107, 220M: 

Political activities of working 
men, see Working men; also 
Trade Unions. 

Political Reform Unions, 161 ff., 
180, 239; Northern, 166 f., 
178, 182, 279; North London, 
165; South London, 165; 
Westminster, 165. 

Politics for the People, 32. 

Poor law, 6, 20 ff., 70, 88, 132, 
io 

Positivists, 140, 233. 

Potter, George, 137 ff., 141, 143, 
189, 190, 209 ff., 217, 220, 230, 
231 and note 1, 233 note 1, 
243; in reform agitation, 255, 
273; Sir John, 116. 

Press, free, 29, 68 f., 72. 

Press, the, 158. 

Preston cotton spinners, see Cot- 
ton spinners. 

Property qualifications for mem- 
bers of parliament, 86, 148, 
161, 166, 172 note 1. 

Protectionists, 40, 41 and note 2. 

Public health, 201 f. 


Radicals, and American Civil 
War, 213 ff.; and Complete 
Suffrage Movement, 23 ff.; 
and Conservatives, 103, 172 
and note 1, 237; and factory 
legislation, 60 ff.; and Liberal 
Party, 77, 96, 98, 103, 112 £., 
115. £.,. 118; W2e See, 
286; and parliamentary re- 
form, 77 ff., 83, 87, 92, 98 £., 
107, 112, 114, 147, 149, 162, 
172 £., 180 ff., 234 £., 243, 250 
f., 257, 261, 281, 286, 288; and 
working class alliance, 21, 74 
f., 77 ff., 97, 99, 104, 148, 161 
f., 188, 193, 214 ff., 234, 236, 
243, 248; 250°) 250mzove eo, 
276, 282, 290; condition of, in 
1848, 29. 

Rate-payers’ Association, 119, 
136. 


———————— 


INDEX 


Reed, R. B. 166. 

Reform, Act of 1832, 6, 19, 20, 44, 
78, 81, 98, 113, 168, 250; Act 
of 1867, 112, 197, 226, 234,— 
agitation for, chapter ix, 266 
ff..—tresults of, 224, 282, 289 
ff.; bill, of 1852, 98, 104,—of 
1854, 56 f., 106, 114,—of 1859, 
159, 166 ff., 171, terms of, 172 
f., debate on, 174 ff., public 
opinion on, 177 ff., as issue in 


election, 181 ff., defeat of, 186, - 


—of 1860, 168, 188, debate on, 
188 ff..—of 1866, 256, 259 ff., 
—of Locke King, 95; finan- 
GiallOmOsent (70, 83 f., 124. 
134, 152, 157; parliamentary, 
Bright’s efforts for, see Bright, 
John,—Conservative attitude 
toward, see Conservatives,— 
Derby and, see Stanley,—Dis- 
raeli and, see Disraeli, Benja- 
min,—feared, 11, 56, 61, 82, 
112, 168 ff., 188 ff., passim, 
230, 234 and note 4, 240, 245, 
263, 284,—Gladstone and, see 
Gladstone, W. E.,—Hume and, 
see Hume, Joseph,—Labor at- 
titude toward, see Labor, also 
Trade Unions, also Working 
classes,—Liberal attitude to- 
ward, see Liberals,—obstacles 
to, 104, 188 ff., 194,—Radical 
attitude toward, see Radicals, 
—reasons for, 81, 91, 108, 111, 
114, 148 ff., 152, 210, 212, 228 
f., 235 £., 241,—Russell and, 
see Russell, Lord John,—re- 
vival of question (1857), 111 
ff.; program of Radicals, 28 
ff.; social v. political, 33 ff., 
98, 108. 

Reformers’ Union (1857), 155. 

Reform League, 71, 162, 165, 
196, 213, 219, 244; activities 
Gin 247, 256° £.; 259) ff., 264, 
266 ff., 294; and Bright, see 
Bright, John; and election of 
Hughes, 247; and Liberal 
party, 256 f., 259, 278, 280, 


317 


293 {.; and National Reform 
Union, 253 f., 257, 264, 272, 
276, 281, 286; and trade 
unions, 252, 255 f., 261, 266, 
269, 274 ff., passim; end of, 
294; Irish, 276 £., 279; organ- 
ization of, 260; origin of, 250 
fia) (Oxtord,) 269) 82/7.) 279" 
program of, 244, 250; Scottish 
National, 271, 275, 279; sig- 
nificance of, 250, 266, 279 {.; 
working-class constituency of, 
244, 250. 

Reform Union, see National Re- 
form Union. 

Republicanism, 75, 233. 
Representation, distribution of, 
30, 86, 153 and note 2, 161. 

Reynolds, G. W. M., 69, 94. 

Reynolds's Newspaper, 57, 138, 
165, 231, 246. 

Ricardo, David, teachings of, 27 
and note 1. 

Roberts, W. P., 162, 272. 

Roebuck, A. J., 147. 

Rogers, Thorold, 277, 279. 

Roupell, William, 127. 

Russell, Lord John, and reform, 
82, 95, 98, 106, 177, 194. 


Savings bank deposits, 199. 

Scottish National Reform 
League, see Reform League. 

Secularist movement, 93. 

Segrave, John, 39. 

Seymer, Ker, 189. 

Shaftesbury, Earl of, see Cooper. 

Shaen, William, 218. 

Shearman, C., 205, 223. 

Sheffield outrages, 208, 232, 275. 

Shipowners’ Society, 122. 

Shoemakers, radicalism of, 162, 
204. 

Show of hands, vote by, 122. 

Sleigh, Col. W. B. A., 124. 

Smith, Goldwin, 269. 

Socialism, fear of, 133, 144, 176, 
233, 285; Marxian, 71 and 
note 1. 


318 


Social legislation, attitude to- 
ward, 10, 12, 42, 45, 47, 58 ff., 
67, 70, 88, 98, 101, 121, 127, 
132, 184, 188, 193, 282 ff. 

Society for the Liberation of Re- 
ligion from State Patronage 
and Control, 129. 

Society for the Promotion of 
Working Men’s Associations, 
33 


Solly, Henry, 201. 

Spencer, Rev. Thomas, 25, 69, 
92. 

Stainsby, William, 210, 223, 253. 

Stanley, Edward George, earl of 
Derby, prime minister, 98 f., 
171, 177; and reform, 149, 151, 
168, 170, 177, 191, 277; Lord 
Edward Henry, 168, 171, 194, 
263. 

Stansfeld, James, 22, 166, 214, 
220. 

Stockingers, 63. 

Strikes, 46; Lancashire, 25 ff.,— 
influence on reform question, 
176, 188 ff., 194; of builders, 
132; 137 it, 141) 6 188 48.196 
f., 205, 221, 229; of engineers, 
52 ff.; of Preston cotton- 
spinners, 54 ff., 107; of Staf- 
fordshire ironworkers, 230 ff.; 
of tinplate workers, 47 ff. 

Stuart, Lord Dudley, 61. 

Sturge, Joseph, and parliamen- 
tary reform, 24, 26, 31, 81, 96, 
151; and peace movement, 107. 

Sturgeon, Charles, 117. 

Suffrage, as a right, 12; in re- 
form bills, see Reform, bills; 
household advocated, 30, 68, 
86, 90, 99, 147, 151, 153 £., 163, 
174, 178, 185 f., 236, 238, 244, 
264, 277, 286; manhood, advo- 
cated, 31, 39, 68, 70, 82, 84, 90 
f., 93, 94, 99, 101, 105, 114, 
124, 126, 151, 158, 161, 164, 
166, 178 ff., 184, 195, 207, 210, 
212) 220) 236i 209 pies 
248, 254, 258, 273; see also, 
Manhood Suffrage Associ- 
ations, and Reform League; 


LABOR AND POLITICS IN ENGLAND 


for lodgers, see Lodgers; rate- 
paying qualification for, 154, 
164; reform of, see Reform, 
parliamentary. 


Tax, graduated property, 39, 67, 
194. 


Taxation, reform of advocated, 
6, 67, 70, 72, 81, 124, 127, 134, 
152, 157; 188; 194.9235: 

Taylor, P. A., 166, 214, 218; and 
Reform League, 252, 254, 269; 
as candidate for Newcastle, 
182. 

Ten Hours Act, 58 ff., 62, 118, 
121, 184; Association for the 
Protection of the, 59; attacks 
on, 59, 88 f. 

Teynham, Lord, 239. 

Tillet, J. H., 94. 

Tinplate workers’ strike, 47 ff. 
Thompson, George, 25, 92, 102; 
Col. P. TS Ssiyolearaug: 

Tolain, Henri, 222. 

Tories, 61, 78, 84, 159, 252. 

Tory-democracy, 29, 34, 64, 83, 
156, 169, 237, 264, 289 f. 

Townshend, John, 124 f. 

Trades Council, of Birmingham, 
225; of Glasgow, 134, 207, 
227 £.; of London, and Glad- 
stone, 243, and International, 
220 ff., 225 £., and peace, 227 
note 1, and reform agitation, 
255, importance of, 203, 205, 
209, 274, on American Civil 
War, 215 ff., 227, on Italian 
freedom, 217, 227, on Polish 
question, 220 f., 227, on 
strikes, 230 f.; organized, 141. 

Trades Garibaldian Committee, 
217 theoue 

Trades Union Commission, 232, 
259) 27/5. 

Trade Union Congress, forerun- 
ners of, 209, 225; favors the 
International, 225. 

Trade Union Manhood Suffrage 
Association, see Manhood Suf- 
frage and Vote by Ballot As- 
sociation. 


INDEX 319 

Watts, John, 162. 

Webb’s History of Trade Union- 
ism, 8; quoted, 35, 224, 228, 
231, et passim. 

West Riding Reformers’ Associ- 
ation, 155. 

Westminster Political Union, see 
Political Unions. 

Whigs, 49, 61, 62, 78, 98 f., 119, 
136, 149, 159, 172, 182, 187, 


Trade-unionists, prosecution of, 
20 ff.; and politics, see Trade 
unions. 

Trade-unionism, 114, 138, 189; 
attacked, 52; policies of, 211. 

Trade unions, 8, 10, 16; amalga- 
mated, 37 ff.; and Garibaldi, 
217 ff.; attitude toward politi- 
cal action, 12, 43, 50, 51, 53, 
56 £., 162, 192 ff., 196 £., 203 


ff., 209 ff., 236, 241, 243, 261, 195, 252 
269 ff., passim, 294; changing Wilke. Washington 36, 161 f 
policy of, 45 ff.; Cobden on, 166, 239. aes : 


108; contemporary discussion : 
Maeiaoneat7G £, 189, 194 233 | Wilson, George, Th2,, oS, 21s, 


f, 245; feared, 50, 56, 139, Wolverhampton tinplate work- 
176, 177, 188 tbe 191 and note ers’ strike 47 ff. 07. 

2, 192, 209, 232 ff., 245, 276; Working classes, alienation from 
increasing strength of, 137, aber | Geass Vile) Wino Grae. 


142, 188, 190, 229 note 5, 232; 
legal status of, 10, 47 ff., 101, 
203, 209, 227 ff., 265, 270, 275; 
on political and economic prob- 
lems in 1850, 36 ff.; relation to 
the International, 221, 223 f., 
—to Reform League, 234, 252, 
255 £., 261, 266, 269 f., 274 ff., 
passim,—to London Working 
Men’s Association, 274. 


American Civil War, 213 ff.; 
and Bright, see Bright, John; 
and Conservatives, 173 ff., 289 
{., 292, et passim; and Disraeli, 
see Disraeli; and Gladstone, 
see Gladstone; and Italy, see 
Italy; and Hungary, see Hun- 
gary; and later reform agita- 
tion, 147, 150, 152, 161 ff., 181 
ff., 195, 204, 207, 226, 229, 232, 


Trelawney, Sir J., 31, 60. 

Trevelyan, A., 162; G M., 
quoted, 77, 84, 110, 148, 160, 
214, 219; G. O., 249. 

Turner, J. A., 116, 183. 


Unemployed Operatives, 
tional Association of, 132. 

Unemployment, in 1857, 131 ff.; 
figures on, 198 f. 

United Kingdom Alliance of Or- 
ganized Trades, 225, 232, 269. 


Villiers, C. P., 31, 41, 60, 99. 


Wages, see Economic conditions. 

Wakley, Thomas, 31. 

Wallas, Graham, quoted, 21. 

Walmsley, Sir Joshua, 31, 61, 63, 
103, 120 ff.; president of Re- 
form Association, 86, 92. 

Watson, James, 62. 


234 ff., 238 £., 243, 244, 250 ff., 
passim; and Liberal party, 111, 
289 ff., see also Elections, Lib- 
eralism, and Liberal-Labor alli- 
ance; and Poland, see Poland, 
see also Internationalism; and 
policy of alliance with the 
middle classes, 19, 22, 31, 56 
the Olle OD sth GOneGrthen OU} 
104, 107, 147, 148, 160 £f., 163,” 
188, 236, 238, 244, 273, 281 f., 
290 f.; and reform bill of 
1859, 172-181; increasing im- 
portance of, 112, 142, 176, 188, 
190, 197 ff., 229 note 5; politi- 
cal activities of, 57, 100 ff., 
Pe LS) TS rie 4360 
fe 174 £177 182 £2185) 192 
ff., 203 ff., passim, 245 ff. 
Young England, 60, 63. 


Na- 








2 = 

: 

ma 
: 








Nea 


a 
cod 








WA 
ZEGhb2hObd 





78lv) see 
6uz Ul sonyod pue J0ge) 


